Energy Efficiency and Waste Management

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the resources allocated to the Are You Doing Your Bit Campaign are sufficient to inform consumers how they can reduce their impact on the environment and climate change and to fulfil the Government's policy of decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Are You Doing Your Bit Campaign was a successful stage in the Government's effort to raise the general level of public awareness, but matters have been moving on from there. The Government have been developing new strategic approaches for sustainable production and consumption, within which future information initiatives will build on the general awareness fostered by the campaign, but will have a more specific focus in areas such as energy efficiency and waste reduction.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The campaign was very successful, and was recognised to be so. Does he then find it a particular shame that it came to an end with its funds taken away and redirected, albeit to the Rural Task Force? No new funds were found for the campaign, and consumers are now not informed of any way in which they can do their bit either to reduce CO 2 emissions or their waste. All the Government's headline indicators that are failing are doing so in areas on which consumers could have an impact.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I do not quite agree with that. The campaign was scheduled to run for a few years. It ran for a few years, and it certainly raised awareness. It did not dramatically alter behaviour. One reason for that is that information for consumers to make the positive choice on, for example, product specification, labelling and new energy efficiency measures was not in place for them to make that choice. It is on that that we are now concentrating.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I declare an interest as a consumer and keen advocate of high economic growth. What would I need to decouple to improve that?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I would require more information than I regret to say that I have about the noble Lord's lifestyle. He could find ways, as were advocated by the campaign, of using less water and electricity and creating less waste than probably he and most of us do at the moment. The campaign was about the individual citizen's ability to change their behaviour to reflect environmental improvements. That meant that we could have economic growth with less demand on resources and less creation of pollution.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the contributions made by the Churches through the eco-congregations and parish pump networks, which help people to understand and do good things about the environment? Furthermore, does he agree that one of the factors most damaging to the environment is the large number of single-person households, with their separate energy bills and car ownership? Would he agree that the best action that anyone could take, far from decoupling, is to get married and stay married? Would he be prepared to endorse the slogan, "Tie the knot and save the planet"?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is driving me to wider issues. Household formation does have an effect on the demand on resources. Were the full teachings of the Church, in terms of "Go forth and multiply", to be pursued by the same married couples to the extent that sometimes seems to be the Church's policy, the demand on resources would be even greater. Having said that, I pay tribute to the work of the Church campaigns and, in particular, the parish pump workshops. Much alteration and improvement in behaviour and awareness can arise from local groups led by the Churches and others.

Lord Avebury: My Lords—

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords—

Noble Lords: Cross Bench!

Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I think that the Minister suggested that I could do a lot to save waste. How am I to save waste when every household necessity that I buy is packaged to within an inch of its life, to such an extent that sometimes I cannot even get into it and have to seek help?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I absolutely agree. I remember that, many years ago, when I was asked what piece of legislation I would favour most I said one on packaging that meant that someone with reasonable dexterity could open a package within 30 seconds. Regrettably, that has never been adopted by the House. There has been some tightening up of packaging regulation, but packaging is certainly one contributor to waste that clearly has not been decoupled from economic growth. In fact, the reverse is true, and we have more packaging than we need. Much of that is non-biodegradable material and we need to take action on that front.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, the Minister said that the campaign had been successful, yet it has changed direction. What was not successful, and what new direction is the new campaign that has been allocated to the Rural Task Force taking?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, the question of the Rural Task Force was one of rebudgeting within DEFRA in the wake of foot and mouth rather than decisions on environmental priorities. The environmental campaign was successful in raising awareness. As I said in response to the Question, what is needed is to make it easier for consumers and citizens to make the positive choices that they now know that they should make. That includes issues such as product specification, low-energy household products and better labelling of all consumer goods, so that we make the minimal energy-use choice. Awareness is there, and we need to turn it into reality.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister think that the House of Lords itself is doing its bit? Would it not make it easier for the House if, for example, each room had separate waste-paper baskets, one for junk mail—noble Lords dispose of a great deal of that—and one for ordinary waste?

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that the detail of that is a matter for the House authorities rather than for me. The central issue of our waste strategy is waste minimisation, which means preventing the junk mail being generated in the first place.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that we can indeed have recycling bins in our offices? In Room G-O5 there is a very good example which he can visit.

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that information, which should be made known to Members of the House. Those of us in a responsible position here have a responsibility for ensuring that our activities in government departments and in Parliament give a lead to our citizens.

Gurkhas: Pay and Service Conditions

Baroness Boothroyd: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What plans they have for improving the pay, pension and service conditions of Gurkhas serving with British defence forces.

Lord Bach: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government greatly value the unique contribution that the Gurkhas continue to make. The fact that Gurkha pay and pensions represent a fair deal was recently affirmed by a ruling in the High Court. Take-home pay is equivalent to that of other Army personnel, and pensions, which are available after only 15 years of service, compare favourably with professional salaries in Nepal, where Gurkhas are discharged. We will, however, be studying the ruling carefully, particularly in respect of current provisions concerning married accompanied service.

Baroness Boothroyd: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's response although he would not expect me to accept it all. Now that the legal case has been set aside, is it not time for the pay and service conditions of the Gurkhas to be re-examined by Her Majesty's Government with a view to improvement? After all, the Gurkhas have served this country as a great fighting force for more than two centuries, during two world wars and numerous conflicts. Does the Minister agree that social justice alone demands that we should not remain so stingy in relation to these very brave and noble fighting men, who have fought for us for all this time and who are most loyal and true to this nation? When can we expect a report on those issues?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said about the Gurkhas. The whole House will agree with her about their role in many campaigns over many years of our history. She will know that brave Gurkhas are presently serving with Her Majesty's forces in Iraq—I understand that about 600 Gurkhas are currently serving. That demonstrates to the House how valuable a part they play in our military campaigns.
	I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Baroness—I say this with some trepidation—about the pay and conditions of the Gurkhas being somehow "stingy". As I suggested in my Answer, the pay of Gurkhas is made up of two elements: the Indian army basic pay and the universal addition, as it is called. That gives Gurkhas broadly the same net take-home pay as a British counterpart in the United Kingdom. Pensions were reviewed just three years ago. All British Gurkha pensioners—25,500 of them—had their pensions at least doubled. Those pensions must be viewed in the context of the cost of living in Nepal, where all Gurkhas are recruited and discharged as Nepalese citizens. Matters arose in relation to the judgment to which the noble Baroness referred, which we will take up. However, on pay and pensions, as the High Court found, there is no injustice.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does the Minister agree that because there is very little employment in Nepal, when those troops are decommissioned, they should be allowed or encouraged to return to this country? Their money from this country would go back to Nepal.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I cannot agree in full with the noble Baroness. The problem goes back to the tripartite agreement, which is now many years old, although it has been brought up to date since 1947. It involves Nepal, India and this country. The basis of that agreement is that the Gurkhas are recruited in their homeland, they serve in their own regiments and are discharged as Nepalese citizens in their own land. They are therefore subject to the same immigration rules as everyone else.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, although I welcome the fact that the MoD dropped its case for not paying compensation to Gurkha prisoners of war in Japan—it took more than 50 years to agree—does the Minister agree that that should be taken as a case for improving pay and conditions to Gurkhas when the next review of the tripartite agreement takes place?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as I said, there is currently no planned review of the tripartite agreement although we are seriously looking into elements of it as a result of the judgment. One such matter was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples. We accept the current position on compensation.

Viscount Slim: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, made clear, the unhappiness among Gurkhas at the moment is not so much about pay and conditions as about what happens after their release. It is strange that a government who accept criminals, terrorists and all sorts of funny people from overseas into this nation of ours do not take a loyal and solid Gurkha once he has had his discharge in Nepal and wishes to come back to work. It is my understanding—I hope that the Minister will correct me—that the Home Office is not too averse to the proposal, but the Ministry of Defence seems to dig its toes in at anything to do with a Gurkha after he has left service.

Lord Bach: My Lords, as the noble Viscount knows, Her Majesty's Government are not to be divided up in the way he suggests. I cannot possibly agree with the last comment that he made. However, both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, have raised an issue which I know is of considerable importance to, and accepted by, many in this House. During the course of a debate in another place on 6th March, my honourable friend Dr Lewis Moonie, who is the Minister responsible for these matters, made it clear that he would take up with his colleagues the issue that has been raised generally. But he also made it clear that he could make no promises.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, can the Minister say whether, if the tripartite agreement could be amended satisfactorily for all three parties, consideration might be given to extending the terms of engagement from 15 to 22 years, as 99 per cent of all Gurkhas now complete their full-time military service of 15 years?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I certainly undertake to look into that matter. However, one advantage held by the Gurkhas is that at the end of 15 years, which is their minimum level of service, they receive a pension which is paid straightaway. UK-citizen soldiers have to be in the Army for 22 years before receiving a pension straightaway; otherwise, as the noble Lord knows better than I do, they have to wait until they are 60 years of age.

Asil Nadir

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What contact they have had, directly or indirectly, during the past five years with Asil Nadir concerning criminal charges outstanding against him in the United Kingdom.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, within the past five years, the Central Criminal Court has issued a warrant for the arrest of Asil Nadir, and Interpol has been notified. In the course of an application made to the Central Criminal Court on his behalf for a stay of the criminal proceedings, contact took place through his solicitors. Arrangements were also made for him to be examined by two medical practitioners on behalf of the Crown to assess his physical and mental health—the state of his health forming part of his application.
	Mr Justice Potts heard that application in the Central Criminal Court and, in effect, refused it in January 2001. Since then two informal indirect approaches were made, in late 2002 and early 2003, to the British High Commission in Cyprus which did not receive a response. Having made inquiries, I am not aware of any other contact, direct or indirect, between Her Majesty's Government and Mr Nadir concerning the criminal charges outstanding against him.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I am grateful to the Attorney-General for that reply. But can the noble and learned Lord appreciate my suspicion that there may have been some arrangement to ameliorate legal proceedings pending against Asil Nadir when this fugitive from justice suddenly changed the editorial position of his Kibris and Cyprus Today newspapers to castigate President Denktash of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus for his opposition to the disgracefully partisan United Nations resolution on the Cyprus issue?
	Does the noble and learned Lord agree that "Mr Polly Peck" is hardly the most reliable individual, nor does he have the principled commitment of President Denktash to the people of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus? Will he assure me that Asil Nadir's support for the United Nations resolution will not be canvassed in return for legal concessions and that all charges against Nadir will continue to stand?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, the first issue raised by the noble Lord is whether or not some sort of arrangement has been made with Mr Nadir to drop, or, as he says, ameliorate, the outstanding charges in exchange for some political support. I can assure him that no such arrangement or deal has been made. I would encourage Mr Nadir to return to the jurisdiction so that the outstanding proceedings can be completed.
	The noble Lord asked how that is to be squared with the change of line being taken in newspapers owned by Mr Nadir. The rationale behind the editorial line taken in those newspapers is not something for which Her Majesty's Government can answer. We do not have any information as to why the Kibris newspaper shifted its editorial position any more than we do in relation to any other newspaper.
	However, if one were to speculate, one might think that, as it is the most popular newspaper in northern Cyprus, it may have detected a shift in the opinion of its readers. Perhaps the editorial team would have noted the 75 per cent approval rating for the United Nations proposals, and the presence in the street of up to 70,000 demonstrators—about a third of the entire population of northern Cyprus—against Mr Denktash's policies and in favour of the United Nations proposals.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that the application of Turkey for membership of the European Union should be considered not only in the light of its human rights record but in the light of the pressure that it can exert upon the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus to introduce proper extradition proceedings?

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord that that is very wide of the Question that has been asked and that it would be more appropriately put in the context of a different Question.

Drugs Dealing with Children: Penalties

Lord McColl of Dulwich: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether plans to make the supplying of drugs to children a specific offence are to be dropped.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have decided not to introduce a specific new offence of supplying drugs to young people. Evidence that a dealer is specifically targeting children and young people would be an aggravating factor brought to the attention of the court. We shall seek to ensure, including through the proposed new sentencing guidelines council, that sentences for dealing drugs to young people are appropriately severe.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is it possible, by some unimaginable stretch of the imagination, that the Government have got this wrong? How are we going to prevent children being hooked on such drugs? Once they are, it leads to a lifetime of misery and disaster and a shortened life span.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with that. The question is: what is the most effective way to deal with the situation? A year ago, it was suggested that consultation should be carried out on the question of whether the offence of dealing in drugs should be aggravated if it involved dealing to children. After the issue had been considered widely, it became apparent that far steeper sentences for dealing drugs to children could be achieved without introducing a new crime. As indicated in a case called Nolan, the courts are very willing to give stronger sentences. That, rather than introducing a new element to the crime, seems the most effective way to deal with the problem. I believe we all agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that we should fight the scourge to which he refers. The question is: what is the most effective way to deal with it?

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of the people who are guilty of such offences are children themselves? Further, does he accept that those children have multiple problems? Therefore, will he agree that the best way to deal with such children may well be through the child protection system rather than through the criminal justice system? Can he also let me know what action the Government are taking to support schools in the deterrence and detection of drug dealing on their premises?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that the criminal justice system provides but one way to combat drugs. Indeed, it is the right course to intervene as early as possible with children who are at risk through both the buying and selling of drugs. We should always face this issue on the basis that it is not a question of either/or; both the criminal justice system and early intervention are important. The Government are extremely keen to promote education and police intervention in schools. The police should not be seen as people who will carry out arrests but as people who will educate children in the dangers of drugs. Considerable efforts have been made by the DfES, including the distribution of more than a million leaflets to schools to explain the dangers of drugs.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, does the Minister recall that about 18 months ago in this House we were given an assurance that the Misuse of Drugs Act would be amended to include crack cocaine? Can the Minister tell me what action has been taken?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not recall a specific assurance being given. Crack cocaine is already an illegal drug. I am not sure what change to the Misuse of Drugs Act would be required. I shall write to the noble Baroness.

Franco-British Relations

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How they intend to improve relations with the government and people of France.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, we continue to work closely with France on a range of important issues. However, there are issues on which we disagree on tactics, for example Iraq. But such disagreements do not define our relationship with France.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am grateful for that encouraging reply. I declare a family interest in that my daughter is married to a French citizen and that they and their three children are residents of France. Is the Minister aware of how welcome the statement made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Privy Seal in exchanges on the Statement on Monday was when he said:
	"Despite the differences that we have had with our allies—we should not forget that the French Government have been our allies for many decades—we must work together, not only in the European context but in humanitarian relief as well"—[Official Report, 24/3/03; col. 492.]?
	Does she agree that, if we are to make a reality of the Prime Minister's objective of putting Britain at the heart of Europe, the demonising of France, its president and its people must come to an end and that Ministers should express their distaste for the kind of xenophobic rubbish that one reads in some tabloid newspapers?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, my noble friend will expect me to agree with the Lord Privy Seal. It is important to say that one disagreement does not define the UK/France relationship. It is a close relationship that goes back a long way and disagreements have been a part of it. It is important to remind the House that we continue to work together on a range of important issues—immigration, education, defence—and we continue to enjoy close commercial, cultural and sporting ties. I do not believe that the overall strength of our bilateral relations will be affected by our differences on Iraq. Those differences have to be discussed and sorted out, but we look forward to celebrating the closeness of our relationship in the entente cordiale celebrations next year.

Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, would one way to achieve an improvement in relations be to encourage British people to drink more wine and to eat more cheese? That would not be a hardship.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree that drinking more wine and eating more cheese would not be a hardship. However, I believe that my colleagues in the Department of Health may have something to say about the quantities of wine that we imbibe and the amount of cheese that we eat.

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords—

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords—

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords—

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is plenty of time. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Strabolgi should speak next as he frequently goes to La Coupole for his lunch.

Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I declare an interest as for many years I was a former member of the Franco-British Council. Will the Government continue to encourage and to finance the Franco-British Council, which is financed by both governments, as it encourages and fosters good relations between Britain and France and carries out important work?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the Franco-British Council carries out important work. Of course we want to see that work continue. The support given to the council by the British and the French Governments will continue.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that one of the issues on which we continue to work closely with France, and I hope the entire European Union, is that of the Middle East and the Arab/Israel problem? In that context, is she aware of a report in the Financial Times this morning that part of the package that President Bush has sought from Congress includes 1 billion dollars towards further military aid to Israel?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that we continue to work on the wider Middle East peace process. The noble Lord will know that the European Union as a whole has played an important role in that, being part of the quartet and it was involved in helping to draft the road map. I am also aware of the announcement that was made by President Bush in respect of the 1 billion dollars.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the current circumstances neither Britain nor France is well served by such domestic written press? Both the French and the British press have not helped the situation. Can she also tell the House how closely the British and the French Governments are working together on policies in regard to Africa? Both states have troops on the ground in the messy, overlapping trans-national conflicts in West Africa. Are we co-ordinating closely in those conflicts?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we continue to work closely with France on a range of issues in Africa. They include co-operation not only in conflict resolution—we both support ECOWAS who have put troops on the ground in Cote d'Ivoire—but we are also working together in Sierra Leone, in Liberia and in the Great Lakes. We have worked together in the UN on a number of those issues. Both the UK and France remain committed to NePAD and to the commitments that we made through the G8 to the G8 Africa action plan, and I am working closely with my French counterpart on that. The House may be aware that we have been in discussions with the French about the possibility of co-location in some countries in Africa—for example, in Francophone Africa where the French have a wider spread than we do—and we co-locate in Freetown. Only last week senior officials from the UK and France met and agreed the continued importance of Franco-British co-operation in Africa.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while it is obvious that there can be no European future without France, it is equally obvious that the Franco-German agenda is bound to be less dominant in the future as we move forward in the reform of the European system? It will also be less dominant in the mending of transatlantic relations between America and the EU than in the past. Will she ensure that the policy-makers in the Government grasp the opportunities offered now by the new Europe and its wish to develop in different directions? Will she also ensure that we do not revert to the habitual role in some parts of the policy-making machine of just waiting to respond to whatever comes from Paris and allowing France to take all the initiatives?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not agree with the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that the policy initiatives all come from Paris. We now have complicated and complex changing alliances. We are seeing the enlargement of the European Union. In the context of the discussion on the convention, a paper was put forward by the French and by the Germans. All of that contributes to a wider debate about the future of Europe and the relationship between the European Union and the United States. All of those things need to happen. Such conversations and discussions will continue. The British position is absolutely clear: we want to see a strong Europe—a strong European Union with a good partnership with the United States.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although we have had the Hundred Years War with France and other wars, in Scotland we have had the Auld Alliance and there have been much longer periods of friendship between our two nations? What are friends for if sometimes we cannot disagree?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that the strength of friendship means that it is much easier to have disagreements and to deal with them.

Lord Brookman: My Lords, on everyone's mind will be the eventual restructuring of Iraq. To what extent are constructive discussions ongoing with France to that end?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the House will be aware that with regard to reconstruction in Iraq we seek a further Security Council resolution. Our objective is to achieve the widest possible coalition of support under UN auspices, so we shall work closely with the French and with other Security Council partners on the issue. That is absolutely vital. Noble Lords will know that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is now on his way to the United States to discuss with the Administration the reconstruction efforts.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, will the Minister tell the House whether the Government are aware of any pressure brought to bear by France on Turkey as to the United States transfer of troops through Turkey to northern Iraq, particularly in the light of Turkey's application to join the EU?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am certainly not aware of any such pressure. I am happy to take that question back and to write to the noble Lord if I can add anything.

Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, the Question refers quite specifically to how Her Majesty's Government intend to improve relationships with the Government and the people of France. Can the Minister advise the House as to the extent to which the French Government and the people of France intend to improve relationships with Britain?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it would be slightly difficult for me to answer on behalf of the French Government and the French people, although I can hear my noble friend behind me saying "Go on".
	In any relationship or partnership things have to be two-way. We should not be able to have discussions with our French counterparts if they were not prepared to have those discussions with us. I can assure the House that we are engaged in discussions with our French colleagues on a whole range of issues. I repeat: although the disagreement on Iraq runs deep, there are a number of different areas—immigration, education and defence. The noble Lord may not know that after the Franco-British summit a proposal was submitted on defence. I am happy to write to the noble Lord about it.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, perhaps we may briefly refer to the gastronomic theme. Is the Minister aware, in view of the mention of the fondness of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for lunch at La Coupole, that that particular restaurant has an Anglophile menu? The last time I lunched there, on the menu was "Welsh rabbit", which was excellent. When I inquired of the waiter where the cheese came from, he was unable to answer. But, after a foray into the kitchen, he returned, beaming all over his face, with the news, "C'est le Cheddar".

Baroness Amos: My Lords, it would be impossible to say anything that would top what the right reverend Prelate has said.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the Minister say whether the French are fully onside with us on the need for regime change in Harare?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, it is not British policy to have regime change in Harare. We have consistently said that we want to see a return to the rule of law, the end of harassment, and that one way to achieve that would be to have free and fair elections in Zimbabwe. There were not free and fair presidential elections last year. It is for the people of Zimbabwe to decide who they want to lead their country.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Chalfont set down for today shall be limited to two-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Lord Northbourne to three hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Iraq

Lord Bach: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place earlier today by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a further Statement about military action in Iraq. Coalition forces have made significant progress since my Statement to the House last Friday.
	"Saddam Hussein's calculation in this conflict is that western democracies are weak, that they have no stomach for a fight, that they will not stand up and go on standing up for the things they believe in.
	"Tyrants misunderstand and miscalculate the values that are at the heart of our democracies—that we are here in this House only because people are able freely to elect us, and that we uphold and observe the rule of law. They also forget that the members of our Armed Forces volunteer to serve their country.
	"Our Armed Forces comprise free men and women with their own often strongly held individual views and ideas. They serve together and risk their lives together because they choose to, not because some thug stands behind them or their family with threats of torture or execution.
	"Those free men and women choose to risk their lives in the defence of values we share. And when those lives are lost we pay proper tribute to them and to their families, because they stand in our place, and we must in turn resolutely stand up for them.
	"That is why on behalf of the Government I extend our condolences to the families and friends of those servicemen who died—20 individuals with 20 grieving families. Whether they died in tragic accidents, or from enemy fire, these men gave their lives in the service of their country and in defence of the highest ideals. We owe them and their families a profound debt of gratitude for their sacrifice. They will not be forgotten.
	"We have all seen the reporting from the 24-hour media over the last few days. Inevitably, such reporting reflects the immediate situation around specific journalists. It does not always give an overall picture or strategic perspective.
	"I would therefore like to set out the context by reporting progress against the tasks identified in the Government's military campaign objectives published on 20th March.
	"After six days of conflict, the coalition has made steady progress, following the main outline of our military plan, towards the objective of overcoming resistance from the Iraqi security forces. The Al Fawr peninsula, Umm Qasr and the southern oilfields have been secured, and Iraqi resistance in those areas defeated. 3 Commando Brigade is in control, and the United States 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit has been released to return to the lst Marine Expeditionary Force which is now heading towards Baghdad.
	"16 Air Assault Brigade is deployed in the southern oilfields and the 7th Armoured Brigade dominates the Basra area. Resistance in nearby Az Zubayr has been defeated and British forces are in place in much of the area around the city of Basra.
	"US forces are spearheading an advance northwards with lead elements at Karbala, 60 miles south of Baghdad. US Marine combat units have also crossed the Euphrates and are proceeding northwards. Honourable Members will have seen accounts of the serious engagement near al Najaf last night in which US forces from the 5th Corps repelled an attack by Iraqi forces.
	"Over 5,000 sorties have now been flown in the air campaign, and we have achieved significant degradation of Iraqi regime and command and control facilities. The focus of our effort will now shift towards close air support of coalition ground forces advancing on Baghdad.
	"On our most important campaign objective—namely, to deny Iraq use of its weapons of mass destruction—our efforts have centred on disabling the command and control facilities through which the Iraqi regime would order the use of such weapons. Our experts have already begun to investigate potential weapons sites in coalition-controlled areas. To date, we have no evidence of Iraqi use of weapons of mass destruction during this campaign. But it is impossible to know whether this is the result of successful military operations or a deliberate tactical judgment of the Iraqi regime. Indeed, we know from prisoners of war that protective equipment was issued to southern Iraqi divisions.
	"As the Prime Minister has made clear, it will be the removal of Saddam Hussein's appalling regime which will ultimately lead to Iraqi disarmament. To achieve this, we have been seeking to isolate the regime at all levels in every part of Iraq—in Baghdad, Tikrit, Mosul and in Basra—primarily by the use of precision attacks against regime and military targets. Although the regime has not yet collapsed—Saddam Hussein's thugs continue to resist in some areas—the regime has effectively lost control of southern Iraq. The regime must know that its days are now numbered.
	"British forces have made a key contribution towards the objective of ensuring that essential economic infrastructure is secure. The southern oil fields and associated infrastructure have been secured with very little damage. Umm Qasr, the country's one significant port, is under coalition control and is in working condition. A mine countermeasures task force under Royal Navy command and including US and Australian elements is making steady progress in clearing the Khawr Abd Allah waterway of any mines. That is necessarily a slow and painstaking process.
	"In the areas now under our control, British commanders are making contacts in the local communities in order to begin the process of restoring normality.
	"We seek to deter wider conflict both inside and outside Iraq. The situation in coalition-controlled Iraq is generally stable, although we are keeping a close watch on events in Basra. I can assure the House that the welfare of the people of Basra is at the forefront of the concerns of coalition commanders. Coalition forces are engaging groups of enemy forces as they try to flee the city and we have successfully struck key regime targets within it—notably, overnight, the Ba'ath Party headquarters.
	"Northern Iraq remains stable and we intend to preserve that position. The situation remains calm along Iraq's other borders. Much of coalition-controlled Iraq bordering Iran is under British command, but the suggestion that the Royal Marines were sent to guard against Iranian forces is simply not true. We are seeking close contacts with the Iranian authorities to reduce the scope for any misunderstanding.
	"Overall, our campaign aims to secure a better future for the people of Iraq. Our fight is not with the people of Iraq. There can be no greater demonstration of that than the efforts that we are making to provide immediate humanitarian support and assistance where we can. Let us be clear: there has long been a humanitarian crisis in Iraq caused by Saddam Hussein's misrule and plundering of that country's resources for military spending, including his programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Many Iraqis have long been dependent on aid from the UN Oil for Food programme, and more than half of Iraqis living in rural areas have no access to safe water.
	"The first stage in providing that help to Iraq must be defeating Saddam Hussein's forces and establishing a secure environment. That is necessary before we can begin to conduct humanitarian operations. The Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel "Sir Galahad" is loaded with water, medical supplies, food and equipment for providing shelter. It is waiting to enter Umm Qasr as soon as the sea lanes have been cleared of mines. At the same time, in a co-operative effort with Kuwait and the United States, Royal Engineers are constructing a water pipe from Kuwait into Iraq to provide drinking water.
	"That humanitarian effort will build up over the coming weeks. It is impossible to know for certain the full extent of the resources that will be required. But, in conjunction with the Department for International Development, we have plans to address what we know are likely to be the most immediate and pressing needs. That must be part of a wider international effort, and the International Committee of the Red Cross is already providing support to the Iraqi people in Basra and elsewhere.
	"After six days of military operations against the Iraqi regime, the coalition has made steady progress. Our servicemen and women have played a pivotal role in what has been achieved and we can be proud of their courage, resilience and determination in combat. But there is much more to achieve, and much more that we can offer the people of Iraq. The Government's position is clear. We will remain resolute until our objectives have been met."
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Vivian: My Lords, from these Benches we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I say at the outset that all our thoughts and sympathy are extended to the families of the courageous troops who have lost their lives and been wounded. We are grateful for the overall view of the campaign repeated by the Minister, as television reporting covers a mass of small incidents that can on occasion be misleading and unhelpful.
	On balance, it is clear that the coalition forces are doing well, that things are going to plan and that there has been no real set-back for our forces. In fact, significant progress has been made.
	However, it is with great regret that casualties have occurred. It is regrettably likely that more may occur, but we must stiffen our resolve in that respect. With regard to the tragic friendly fire accident of a Queen's Royal Lancer tank being destroyed by our own troops, I do not feel that it is wise to comment further until we know the outcome of the inquiry, but of course it does demonstrate how essential it is that our own Challenger tanks and Warrior armoured vehicles have proper, working Identification Friend or Foe systems. In particular, I send all my sympathies to the families of the two tank crewmen who were killed and the two who were severely wounded.
	I have several questions for the Minister. Why has it taken so long to silence the Iraqi television and broadcasting system? Although the main transmitters have been destroyed, other systems keep it running. If we want the people of Iraq to rise up, it is essential that speeches by Saddam Hussein are not seen or heard. Why should we have to listen to commentary by Saddam's generals broadcast by the BBC?
	Will the Minister say a little more about the role of 16 Air Assault Brigade in the Ramaliah oil fields and of the Royal Marines on the Iranian border, to which he referred? I am not asking about their missions, but I should be interested, as I expect the House would be, to know a little more about their overall roles.
	We have achieved what the plan required so far. Those achievements are excellent. We must keep stressing those achievements, and 7th Armoured Brigade is to be congratulated on its operations around Basra. The clearance of the Umm Qasr port and the waterways by the Royal Navy and its minesweepers has been an exemplary operation. It is to be congratulated on having done such a dangerous job so well.
	I am sure that all sides of the House wish to convey our messages of good fortune to all our soldiers, sailors and airmen. We pray for their safe return. We owe them a vast debt of gratitude and I pay respectful tribute to them all.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we echo that support for our soldiers fighting in Iraq at present and our regret for those who have died, especially through friendly fire. That is obviously one of the worst situations that the Armed Forces can face. Considering how complicated and dangerous is the operation that has been embarked on, it is almost to be expected. When soldiers are fighting at night and in sand, such tragedies may well take place. I hope that the Government will ensure—as I am sure that they are doing—that the systems that safeguard our troops against friendly fire incidents are satisfactory.
	The Iraqi regime has not collapsed in the way that we were led to believe, mostly by the press. I hope that the Government will continue their careful and cautious policy, and that the constraints protecting Iraqi civilians from the overwhelming firepower of the coalition forces will not be relaxed.
	It is extremely welcome that no chemical weapons have yet been used. However, there was a report in the press that a chemical weapons factory had been discovered. Was there any truth in that, or was it press speculation?
	One issue that is now coming to the fore as ground is taken is humanitarian aid. It is a source of some relief that I believe that half of the water supply in Basra is now back on-line. It will be important for troops to get into Basra to normalise the situation, because it is not just the lack of food and water that will cause real upset, it will also be the inability of Iraqi farmers to take their tomatoes to market and sell their produce.
	Although that is just a short-term crisis, in the long term it will affect how the Iraqi people view the coalition forces. I believe that only three countries have given military support to the action in Iraq. Can the Minister indicate how many countries have committed forces or units for humanitarian relief? I ask that question particularly because, until the situation is settled in Iraq, the military will have to guard humanitarian convoys and allow non-governmental organisations to work in safety. That will cause a great drain on our military resources in the Gulf.
	Obviously, our thoughts are with the soldiers in Iraq. But our thoughts are also with the people of Iraq who face such fear and danger.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank both noble Lords from the Front Benches for their helpful and supportive comments at this time. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, perhaps I may say a word about the sad deaths of the two soldiers in the Challenger tank. The noble Lord did not mention it but I know, and your Lordships House would want to know, that the soldiers came from the same regiment that the noble Lord served in so notably for many years. While we all feel the pain of that appalling incident, I dare say that the noble Lord feels it as much, if not more, strongly. I am sure that your Lordships would want to ask the noble Lord to pass on our best wishes to that brave regiment.
	There is an ongoing inquiry into the incident. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked questions about it. He will forgive me if I say very little, save that a range of equipment was fitted to Challenger 2 tanks before the operation to contribute to the combat ID capability. Whatever is or is not fitted, I regret that the ghastly truth is that in war—I dare say this was true of olden days as well as in modern times—there can never be 100 per cent guarantee that these particularly appalling incidents of friendly fire do not occur. That is all I shall say on that topic now.
	The noble Lord, Lord Vivian, asked questions about some British forces and whether I could give more detail. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give that information to him today.
	As regards weapons of mass destruction, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked a question in relation to the site about which we have all read in the newspapers. The position has not advanced much since those reports. We are aware of reports that a so-called chemical weapons factory has been discovered near Najaf. The Pentagon will not be drawn on these reports—quite understandably—while they are unconfirmed. Of course, we will not be drawn either. But I assure noble Lords that extremely careful research is going on to establish whether there is anything in that newspaper story.
	On humanitarian relief, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, an exact number for the nations involved. Indeed, I am not sure that knowing precise numbers of nations involved in various aspects adds very much. I am neither confirming nor denying the statement that he made; namely, that three countries are involved in war fighting at present.
	The point is that the military action against the regime to enforce disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is supported by a broad coalition of well over 40 countries. Some 20 countries are providing or have offered military forces or host nation basing to the coalition and supporting activity. A large number of other nations are providing logistical support as well. Many countries have expressed their desire to help the crucial humanitarian assistance part of this campaign.
	Finally, I confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that my understanding, too, is that 50 per cent of the water supply to Basra has now been restored.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, the Minister no doubt in error overlooked the question about television being disabled.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend; I wish he was always there to remind me. This is an important point and fairly sensitive to describe. My understanding is that the television station hit last night also had a military connection. Bearing in mind that very careful targeting is central to the coalition's aims in this campaign, one of the reasons why television studios or centres have not been hit is that they were considered too close to civilians. I am told that a way has been found around that. That is why the damage was done to the particular television station last night. But the frustration that the noble Lord, Lord Vivian, expresses is one I think we all share.

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the Minister not agree, while not advocating censorship of our broadcasting media, that it would be a good idea for the Government to suggest that it is neither in good taste nor compassionate to keep showing pictures of coalition prisoners of war who are in a state of shock? This causes them great distress in later years and distress to their families.

Lord Bach: My Lord, the noble Baroness tempts me and I cannot resist the temptation. She is absolutely right. I shall not enter into a general criticism of how the media have handled events so far. They have a job to do and, in many ways, they have done it extremely well. On that particular matter, those sections of the media that have shown the pictures can be criticised. Undoubtedly, putting those prisoners of war before the media was a gross breach of the Geneva Convention, but we should not be surprised that Saddam's regime encourages such breaches. I hope that after that rather poor beginning in terms of allied prisoners of war, it will not be repeated.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister to send from me and from all the ladies of the War Widows Association of Great Britain our deepest love and our greatest sympathy to the widows and families of all the servicemen we have lost in Iraq.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. I guarantee that that message will be relayed as she asked.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear this thought in mind because I think that it is very encouraging? The numbers of casualties have been absolutely tiny in this war. More people have been killed on the roads in England during the past week than have been killed in battle. In half an hour, a squadron of the 4th County of London Yeomanry was wiped out at Villiers Bocage in 1944. In 218, 30,000 Romans were killed in three hours at the Battle of Lake Trasimene. We have had a stupendously great victory so far. Our soldiers have done brilliantly. Just a minor point. The forebears of my noble friend Lord Vivian were not allowed to continue the pursuit at Waterloo because there had been a big blue-on-blue by the Prussians shooting up the Oxon Bucks Light Infantry, so the Prussians continued. There is nothing new on shooting our own side, tragic though it may be. Surely, we should congratulate people on the infinite care and lack of casualties, both to ourselves and to the enemy, in what we have achieved so far.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. I thank him for his comments. One of our main aims is to ensure that casualties—no matter where they come from—are kept to an absolute minimum. Every fatality is a tragic loss. I hope that the number of casualties remains low, but I would be foolish to forecast that that will continue to be the position. War is a dreadful thing and will undoubtedly lead to casualties. The noble Earl prefaced his question with the words "so far". Each casualty is terrible, but so far there have not been as many as expected. We have a long way to go and we have to keep our nerve.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, there has been much speculation about calls from Sulaymaniyah last night for a northern front incorporating PUK and KDP pesh merga forces with the coalition forces. Has my noble friend anything to report on that matter?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid I do not have anything to report on that matter. My noble friend can rest assured that the coalition is keeping a close eye on events in northern Iraq.

Lord Blaker: My Lords, there seems to be an increasing tendency for members of the Iraqi armed forces to abandon their uniforms and dress in civilian clothes while keeping their weapons. Is that not likely to make it more difficult for our forces to distinguish between such people and genuine civilians whom they are instructed not to injure if at all possible. If this is true and results in more civilian deaths, is it not clear that the fault will lie not with our side but with the Iraqis? Will the Government and the American Government make this very clear, by all means possible, to the world and to Iraq?

Lord Bach: My Lords, as always, the noble Lord makes an extremely good point. Such tactics, which appear to be being employed, are completely ruthless, as one would expect. The coalition seems more concerned about civilian casualties than the Iraqi regime, whose citizens these people are. It is clear that in some of the southern towns and cities about which we have heard so much, the intensity of the regime has dominated people's lives. We are seeing still the intensity of that domination in the way the Iraqi authorities are behaving.

Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, many will have welcomed the Prime Minister's statement yesterday that we will not make the same mistake we made in 1991 by failing to support the uprising that took place then. He said that we would not fail the people of Iraq this time. Given the tyranny and the brutality to which the Minister referred, can he tell the House the current situation in regard to the uprisings of resistance in Iraq, not least in Basra.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I can say little more than I have said so far. As the Prime Minister said earlier today, the picture is confused. There may have been an uprising in Basra but, as yet, we do not have a clear picture of its scope or scale or where it will take us. However, coalition forces are engaging groups of enemy and other paramilitary forces as they try to flee the city. Once matters become clearer we shall look to assist and exploit the situation in order to liberate the brave people of Basra and allow humanitarian aid to flow into the city. The noble Lord can rest assured that the people of Iraq will not be left in the position they were 12 years ago.

Lord Sandberg: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what success we have had in putting out the fires in the, luckily, relatively few oil wells fired by the Iraqi authorities.

Lord Bach: My Lords, in comparison to the total number of oilfields, very few fires indeed have been started. I believe that nine have been set on fire, although we have found many where charges have been laid but not set off. The clear reason for that is the brilliant campaign undertaken by the British forces to get there quickly and efficiently. Saddam Hussein sought to invoke an environmental disaster 12 years ago. No doubt he would have attempted to do so again had he been able to, but this time he has seemingly not succeeded. Not all the fires have been put out, but all of them are under control.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I add further expressions of gratitude and admiration from these Benches for the courage and professionalism of our servicemen and women and send profound sympathy to those injured and bereaved so far and offer our prayers for them.
	Can the Minister elaborate further on the restoration of the water supply to Basra? Has the International Committee of the Red Cross been involved in helping to restore the water supply? Does the Minister see a possibility of other NGOs being able to be involved fairly soon in areas of Iraq where relative peace has been re-established? Can he say more about his expectations of the role of NGOs and how soon they will be able to operate?

Lord Bach: My Lords, we know that in Basra a high order of humanitarian needs existed well before the conflict began a week or so ago. I am not in a position to give the right reverend Prelate more specific information. Our policy is clear. We want to see humanitarian aid going into Iraq—into Basra in particular—as soon as possible. We shall have to establish a secure environment before we can do so, and that is what we are working to achieve.

Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for being absent during the opening moments of the Statement. Is it not inevitable that the extraordinary news coverage that is taking place, together with the insatiable demands of the various networks for more and more news, has led directly to a feeling of impatience and that something has gone badly wrong? In that connection, is it not worth remembering that, although the land campaign in the previous Gulf War took four days, the entire campaign took 42 days to achieve a much more limited objective? Perhaps I may offer this advice to the Minister when dealing with this impatience that may lead to confusion and to a feeling that perhaps the campaign is failing. There is obviously a heavy load on the Minister and his colleagues to inform the people. The media will not change—they will continue to press and to demand more action—and he will have to convey the messages. In conveying those messages, may I suggest that it is very important that all the government and military spokesmen under-claim rather than over-claim and follow any rumour. In the famous and tragic fog of war, it will give easy propaganda victories to Saddam Hussein and his cohorts if they can prove that stories we appear to be supporting are unfounded. That is a very important aspect of the present campaign.

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater. He is right. Some of the expectations which have appeared in the media and elsewhere have always been ridiculous. The noble Lord, better than anyone, can make comparisons between the Gulf War, and perhaps Kosovo, and this conflict. We have had huge successes very early in the campaign. No one really thought that by this time we would have got as far and done as well as we have. We shall bear in mind his second point about under-claiming. I hope that we are doing that. We are trying to be as cautious as possible with a 24-hour media and some of the absurd claims that have been made. We have to feel our way when we have to counter the occasional exaggerated story. We do not want to say that it is not true when it may be true in part.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord King, is the Minister satisfied that the massive press presence, with its TV cameras and instantaneous reporting of events, is not a hindrance or even a danger to our fighting forces? Do the commanders on the ground have clear instructions on how to deal with the press the moment it becomes a nuisance, without having the fear that they themselves will be pilloried if they tell members of the press to get lost?

Lord Bach: My Lords, the great majority of the journalists now in the Gulf working with the coalition and our Armed Forces are, to use the parlance, embedded in the coalition; that is, commanders on the ground have the authority that the noble Lord asked about. Clearly, if journalists are in danger of representing a real challenge to our troops, then of course I am sure that they would be told to get lost; or in military terms, something a good deal stronger than that.
	On the other hand, it is important to recall that there is no better proof of a free society than one in which journalists are able to comment as they please, able to watch battles taking place and witness the campaign being waged, and are then able to report back to a free people. If anything like that could take place in Iraq, then things would be very much for the better.

Lord Fearn: My Lords, can the Minister explain why Turkish troops have amassed on Iraq's borders? Is there a reason for that?

Lord Bach: My Lords, to a limited extent, Turkish troops have been within northern Iraq for many years. We know that the Turks have a legitimate interest in what is now taking place in Iraq and they fear what may happen. However, along with the rest of the world, we have advised the Turks to act cautiously. Although they fear a break-up of Iraq's territorial integrity, that is not something that the coalition is going to allow to take place.

The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I am slightly disappointed that, to date, not a great deal of mention has been made of our reserve forces serving in the Gulf. Perhaps I may remind the House and the Minister that some 5,000 men and women are currently serving in the Gulf. Those people have given up their civilian jobs and a large part of their daily existence and lives for the next nine months. They are professional people comprising medics, signallers, sappers, members of REME and many other specialists. Whenever and wherever possible, and when the opportunity presents itself, can I ask the Government to make more mention of the vital role that these great and to date unsung heroes are playing on our frontline and right through to our rear support? The reservists will be hugely important to the success of the outcome in the Gulf.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Bach: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for his words and certainly I take on board the message that he has sent to us. I believe that earlier today my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place responded to certain specific questions on the position of the reserve forces. However, what the noble Earl has said is absolutely right. The sacrifice made by the volunteers in giving up their everyday lives in order to serve their country—in passing, I do not apologise for mentioning again one of our colleagues in this House, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee—is something that the rest of us can only wonder at.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that many countries are now providing logistical support. Can he tell the House whether any Arab countries are openly on that list? Furthermore, can he comment on the reaction in their own countries?

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not in a position to answer the noble Earl's question.

Extradition Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Security and Liberty

Lord Chalfont: rose to call attention to the balance between national security and individual liberty in a democratic society; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, perhaps I may say how much I look forward to this brief debate—although perhaps I am alone in that. I should also say how much I shall appreciate the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. His experience gives him a special insight into these matters.
	I should begin by saying that in using the term "national security" in the Motion, I do not mean to restrict the debate to national security only in the sense of defence. I am concerned here with the balance between, on the one hand, the interests of the state and society in the broader sense and, on the other hand, those of the individual citizen on the other. In fact, a better phrase than "national security" might be found in one of the prayers we use to start the proceedings each day in your Lordships' House,
	"the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the realm".
	Yet the events of September 2001 have underlined the fact that there is now a serious threat to our national security in the narrower sense and that, in defending ourselves against it, we may be obliged to employ measures which would not be appropriate in a totally safe and unthreatened society.
	The question is simple: to what extent, in ensuring the safety and well-being of our democratic society as a whole, should we adopt policies which, even temporarily, restrict the liberty of individuals in that society? As I have said, it is a simple question but, as always, it is the answer which is a little more difficult.
	We need first to examine the two principal factors in the equation: what is the nature of the threat to society, and how far is the freedom of the individual endangered by our reaction to it? The threat to national security—the military threat—comes, as noble Lords will know, from a unique kind of global terrorism with its motivation in a fanatical religious extremism, the aim of which is no less than the destruction of our liberal democratic society and of the freedoms and tolerance that we have developed over the centuries. It is a violent and ruthless extremism that is totally without humanity or compassion. We are dealing here with a very serious threat and it is simply childish and self-deceiving to use, as do some people, debating society phrases such as, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter", or to talk glibly about meeting the threat of terrorism by finding a remedy for its causes.
	Some of those who oppose the terrorist threat are so-called "sleepers", living among us, ostensibly as peaceful citizens, but ready to strike, lethally and without warning. So the threat to our security can come suddenly, not only from outside but also from within. Our society is in danger of becoming what the Home Secretary, Mr David Blunkett, called in a press interview,
	"an airy-fairy libertarian world, where everybody does precisely what they like and believe the best of everybody, and then they destroy us".
	The syntax of that statement may be slightly precarious, but its truth is unmistakable.
	Then there is the other kind of threat to the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the realm. It comes from crime, vandalism and what has been called "anti-social behaviour". It is not too extreme to say that we are now living in a society in which violent crime, the gun culture and the virtual anarchy which is associated with drugs and gang warfare are inspiring apprehension and fear in society as a whole. Burglary and robbery seem to be regarded in some sections of society as alternative leisure activities. In many residential areas of our capital cities, people are afraid to walk alone after dark, while older citizens are not even safe in their own homes.
	I think it is fair to say that no reasonable person would deny that we have the need, and indeed the duty, to defend our society and its values against both of those threats. Some would argue that that may legitimately involve measures which restrict the freedom of action of our citizens; in other words, which may erode their liberty, even if only temporarily. One of the primary responsibilities of a freely elected government is to protect their citizens from harm; to ensure, as I have said, the maintenance of the public wealth, peace and tranquillity of the realm. If that is threatened, is it not right to place limits on individual freedom if, in doing so, we diminish or remove the threat?
	That may be a simplistic formulation of the issue, but it leads to the crucial question: are we in danger of passing the point of balance at which individual liberty can legitimately be restricted in pursuing what the state regards as the common good?
	To what extent is individual freedom being restricted and to what extent are individual rights being endangered today? Every human rights activist has his favourite list of alleged attacks on individual freedom—many were described in a recent series on the BBC World Service, which asked the question: "Have governments decided that, for the time being at least, there are more important priorities than guaranteeing the liberties of their citizens? If so, are they correct?". The BBC's conclusion seemed to be that the answer to the first part of the question was: yes—governments, including our own, have decided that there are more important priorities than individual liberty; and, no, they are not correct to do so.
	The BBC is not necessarily the fount of all wisdom or objectivity in these matters, although there is some evidence to support that point of view. The organisation Liberty—the National Council for Civil Liberties—has been very concerned for some time about the impact on civil liberties of counter-terrorism legislation, with special reference to the Terrorism Act 2000, and also about derogations from the European Convention on Human Rights. Not surprisingly, Liberty takes the view that special anti-terrorism legislation creates a twin-track criminal justice system in which people suspected of terrorist activities have fewer rights than suspects under the ordinary criminal law.
	Those concerns are not altogether surprising. In the past five years, the Government have brought forward 12 criminal justice Bills. Recent legislation and proposed legislation, much of which has been brought forward on grounds of national security, seem to suggest that the point of balance is shifting away from the sacred principle of individual liberty. Everyone will have his own list, but many people are concerned about such developments as the proposed change in the law as regards double jeopardy and the threat to the right to trial by jury.
	There are questions in many minds about the increasingly prevalent use of closed circuit television and the potential intrusiveness of plans for what are called entitlement or identity cards. Many people view with special alarm the American proposal for a Total Information Awareness system, involving a centralised recording of e-mails, credit card transactions and telephone calls; and there seems to be a growing prevalence of the practice of arbitrary arrest and incarceration without trial. All are matters of grave concern.
	One aspect of the problem is reflected in the consultation paper published earlier this month by the Home Office: Access to Communications Data. Last summer, the draft order adding public authorities to the list of those with access to communications data was strongly resisted and the Home Secretary withdrew it, conceding that he had got it wrong. However, in the new consultation document the Home Secretary makes the following statement:
	"The concerns highlighted by the reaction to the withdrawn order are only part of a much wider debate about the balance between privacy and protecting the public from crime".
	It may be argued that crime and privacy are not the same as national security and liberty. But I would argue that they are, in fact, aspects of the same problem. The invasion of privacy is itself an erosion of individual liberty. The Home Secretary seems to endorse this, by quoting in the consultation paper the European Convention on Human Rights, which, he says,
	"permits compromise of an individual's freedom, but only in accordance with the law and where necessary to protect life or prevent crime".
	The new consultation document seeks to explain why public authorities need access to communications data—in other words, to such things as itemised telephone call records, on-line tracking of communications and the identity of telephone subscribers.
	It is arguable that all these measures may be necessary in the defence of society against crime and the threat of terrorism. As Isaiah Berlin, one of our modern political philosophers, has written:
	"We must preserve a minimum area of personal freedom [but] we cannot remain absolutely free and we must give up some of our liberty to preserve the rest".
	However, I would suggest that we must not cross the frontier beyond which we sacrifice so many of our individual liberties that we are no longer a free society. On one side of that frontier stand societies sure of their civilised values. As the classical political philosophers have always insisted, that frontier may shift, but it is always recognisable.
	My question today is: are we sure of our civilised values? Are we capable of recognising and preserving the balance—which, once it is lost, may be impossible to restore? As Edmund Burke said in his Reflections on the Revolution in France,
	"I flatter myself that I love a manly, moral regulated liberty as well as any gentleman".
	But individual liberty must, as Burke went on to say, be combined with peace and order, civil and social manners. Recent developments in our streets, inner cities and elsewhere lead me to doubt whether those virtues—civil and social manners—any longer go along with individual liberty in this country. It is arguable, therefore, that we may need strong measures to ensure the peace and tranquillity of the realm.
	Even those who share my life-long commitment to the principle of individual liberty may be concerned about some of the activities of marchers, protesters and demonstrators for various causes who frequently make our streets and public places "no-go" areas for ordinary citizens trying to live their own lives and go about their own business. It is worth remembering that the European Convention on Human Rights, which I quoted a moment ago, and which is often quoted in support of some of these activities, states clearly that the freedom of right of expression is subject to a number of conditions, including,
	"the protection of the rights of others"—
	the protection of the rights of others, my Lords.
	Perhaps in that phrase lies part of the answer to the question that I posed at the beginning of my remarks. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Marlesford: My Lords, we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for introducing such an important and topical subject.
	At this moment, we are fighting three wars: a war in Iraq against Saddam; a war against terrorism; and a war against crime. These are all wars to protect individual liberty—the liberty of the Iraqis from a dictatorship which is obscene in its satanic cruelty to human beings; the liberty of those who have no connection with international politics but who can, at any moment, be cut down by the terrorist, who will go for the safest, and thus probably the most innocent, target; and the liberty of ordinary citizens to go about their daily lives in reasonable confidence that their lives and property will be secure from the common criminal.
	I believe that it is therefore necessary to re-think fundamentally the balance between national security and individual liberty. I start from the simple proposition that individual liberty is a function of national security. Without the second, you cannot have the first.
	If public policy in a democratic society is to reflect the concerns and priorities of the citizens, as I believe it should, then it is the task of government to introduce such safeguards as may be necessary to meet those wishes.
	There is so much to be done and so much which can be done. Thanks to the acceleration of technology, many of these safeguards can be put in place not only with huge precision and efficiency—and, at the same time, safeguarding the liberties which they seek to protect—but at ever-diminishing cost.
	I would like to mention the recent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology entitled Chips for Everything, which was introduced in a debate here last week in a remarkable speech by its chairman, my noble friend Lord Wade. I strongly recommend your Lordships who have not already got it from the Printed Paper Office to read it.
	Almost anything we want to do is now possible.
	In the short time available to me, I can give only a few examples of where I believe changes in policy are needed. I start with the urgent need to be able to identify citizens of all ages with certainty. This, of course, takes one straight to the controversial subject of identity cards. But it is not the card that matters. It is the foolproof identification of each of us. This is profoundly democratic because it means everyone is treated exactly the same in terms of their identification. It does, of course, involve a unique reference number which must be linked to individuals by biometric measures. There are many of these—the oldest and best known is the fingerprint. More modern methods include eye and face matching and, ultimately, DNA.
	There was a time when the police thought that the need for and value of such methods was questionable. No longer. I have in recent months heard the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police call on two occasions for the introduction of identity cards, which he says must have the essential biometric component.
	The Government are toying with what they call an entitlement card. To produce something which fails to meet the toughest criteria of certainty, privacy and security would be an inexcusable waste of public money.
	Let me say a word about the humble passport. By fortunate coincidence, I received a Written Answer to a Question only yesterday which I suggest highlights the wholly inadequate passport system we have in this country. I asked:
	"Whether immigration officers at points of entry into the United Kingdom have the facility to check on-line the validity of British passports presented by persons leaving or arriving; and how long after the reporting in any part of the world of a lost of stolen British passport this information is available to immigration officers at points of entry into the United Kingdom".
	The Minister's answer was that UK immigration officers do not have direct access on-line to the UK Passport Agency database and that details of passports reported as lost or stolen are sent to the Immigration Service Warnings Index, which is available. It is not electronic. The Minister continued:
	"As part of its anti-fraud programme, the UK Passport Service is developing a database for passports reported lost, stolen or recovered".—[Official Report, 24/3/03; col. WA 53.]
	Is it not amazing that in the year 2003 such a database does not already exist?
	Let me go further: do your Lordships realise that there is no enforced requirement to surrender the passport of a deceased person? The street value of a deceased person's passport is considerably greater in criminal circles than the value of a stolen or lost passport, because it is thought, perhaps wrongly, that there is a smaller risk that somebody might have noticed that the holder was dead. Yet when I raised this subject fairly recently, I was told that enforcement of surrender was not a practical proposition and was too sensitive to grieving relatives.
	There are many other subjects we could raise and will raise. We live in a world of growing menace, and we have to adapt to this new world. The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred to the balance—it is a balance of security against terror. The Americans have put responsibility for this at Cabinet level. I would like to see us do the same.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I, too, am very glad that the next speaker will be the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton. Very appropriately, he is to be followed by one of his predecessors as Cabinet Secretary, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. However, I am surprised and somewhat disappointed to see that, apart from three Members on the Front Bench, the Labour Benches are entirely deserted and there is no speaker who takes the Labour Whip speaking in this debate.
	I declare an interest in this matter as a vice-chairman of the council of Justice. That certainly makes me one of the human rights activists to whom the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, referred in introducing this timely and important debate. In view of his speech and its emphasis on the dangers of allowing national security concerns to interfere with personal liberty, I am tempted to welcome him to our number.
	There must be a balance between security and liberty. That is particularly important because of the terrorist threat. The war with Iraq is also relevant, as is the war against crime, although I would put that under a different heading from national security.
	We have lived with a terrorist threat in this country since 1969, although the threat from Al'Qaeda and similar organisations is worse than that from the IRA. With some exceptions, the IRA aimed to limit rather than increase the number of people who were killed by its terrorist actions.
	I can envisage circumstances in which there might need to be further restrictions, but it has not so far been necessary to restrict the everyday activities of ordinary citizens. It is possible that in future there may be circumstances in which it is necessary, as the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, suggested, to have identity cards. I am not yet persuaded that that is the case. Identity cards are likely to be of more use in dealing with benefit fraud than terrorism. They are not, I believe, needed for security purposes.
	I do not see CCTV in public places as a serious problem, though access to communication records is considerably more worrying. I was very glad that the Government backtracked somewhat on their earlier rather alarming proposals.
	Legislation concerning terrorism has so far been targeted fairly accurately on terrorism and terrorists, partly due to the action in your Lordships' House of both Opposition parties when it came to dealing with some of the very alarming provisions contained in the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
	Obviously, legislation concerning terrorism involves restrictions which, as the jargon goes, engage human rights law. They operate as restrictions on convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. For example, the power to proscribe certain organisations under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is a restriction on freedom of association. The right to seize money belonging to a terrorist organisation is an interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Prohibition of advocacy of terrorism is a restriction of the freedom of expression under Article 10.
	The fact that this legislation restricts rights does not mean that it contravenes human rights. The European Convention on Human Rights is, I believe, a realistic document. The restrictions it imposes must be prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society. The restrictions must be proportionate, and the more serious the threats to security, the more intrusive those restrictions may be. In an extreme case, where a public emergency threatens the life of the nation, the European Convention on Human Rights recognises a right of derogation—that is, a right to exclude the operation of some of its provisions from some convention rights.
	The present system is able to cope with foreseeable security problems. However, some people have proposed that we should emasculate the Human Rights Act and withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Plainly, such action would be neither necessary nor desirable. It would be a surrender to terrorism. Calls for the scrapping of the Human Rights Act come mainly from those who do not believe in human rights to begin with.
	There are even worse suggestions than scrapping the Human Rights Act. In the USA—although not in this country, as far as I am aware—there has been a call for the legalisation of torture as a tool of interrogation. I would find that horrifying. It would be reducing ourselves to the level of the terrorists.
	In a crisis, civil liberties may be restricted in the interests of national security. We need to defend ourselves. However, we are defending not only our lives, but our liberties as well. If we restrict those liberties, we must do so only in order the better to defend ourselves.

Lord Wilson of Dinton: My Lords, I rise to address the House with a sense of surprise and pride. I am surprised because, having had the honour of listening to debates for many hours in this House in the 1960s and 1970s as a private secretary to the late Lord Brown of Macrihanish and as an official, not for one second did I think that I would address the House myself. I feel pride because over a long period I have developed a great respect for your Lordships and for the role of this House. It is a great national institution and I am very proud to be a Member of it.
	I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on this crucial debate. Having been a permanent under-secretary at the Home Office for approaching four years and Secretary of the Cabinet for approaching five years, I am familiar from within government with the problem of striking the balance to which the noble Lord rightly referred. I know very well the difficulty involved, as, I am sure, does the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, who occupied both those offices a little while before me.
	I have always thought it helpful to approach the subject by looking at the famous dictum of John Stuart Mill, which I have taken the liberty of checking for accuracy, although I have often tried to remember it. He said that,
	"the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".
	That is a good starting point for any discussion on the balance. However, there is a familiar paradox built into that statement. In order to protect liberty, we may have to restrict it by invading privacy or by restricting freedom of movement, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, we must never descend to the level of the terrorists, or we have lost the battle.
	The trouble—and I speak from much experience—is that the perception of that harm varies, as does the perception of what severity of action is required in order to protect ourselves against it. That is a peculiarly difficult debate to have if some parties have more knowledge than others. Those in government who deal with these issues of law and order every day—those who receive the reports and warnings on threats to national security and deal with the very proper concerns of the police and the security services—get a concentrated view of the destructive forces in society and begin to realise that they are real in a way that one is not necessarily exposed to in other walks of life. Terrorism, espionage, serious crime, animal rights activists and so on pose a cumulative danger that gives one a sense that life is quite threatening.
	The problem is made more difficult because, as has rightly been said, the limits of what we should tolerate shift. Speaking in another context, the late Lord Devlin once said,
	"there must be toleration of the maximum freedom that is consistent with the integrity of society".
	However, he also said that the limits of that tolerance shift. The balance between individual liberty and national security does not always remain the same. It is not the same in wartime as in peacetime and there are varying shades in between. We have become aware in recent years that we may have systems and structures that are vulnerable to serious harm by relatively simple means that we may not previously have realised. September 11th was a terrible example of that, but there have been others, including the Tokyo Underground incident and the opera house in Moscow. Although it was not an issue of national security, I think the fuel supply crisis a few years ago also brought home the ways in which we are building in vulnerability that we may not have known we had.
	The public are well aware that there is a shift. Governments find themselves under great pressure to act. They cannot always disclose the full extent of their knowledge and they do not always want to advertise weaknesses or alarm the public unduly. At the same time, this must not become a debate in which those who are concerned about harm see only the harm and those concerned with liberty see only the threat to liberty. It has to be a dialogue about where the balance is.
	We need to focus on three crucial safeguards. First, the national institutions that are responsible for striking the balance have always had and must retain a sense of respect for liberty and for due process. I pay tribute to the integrity of those who worked with me in the Home Office and the Security Service. They have built that into their culture and are not always given full credit for doing so. It is fashionable not to trust people in authority. There are some good features of our institutions that may not be apparent.
	Secondly, it is never enough for governments to say, "Trust us". It is important that we have set up independent watchdogs who have access to information about the extent of harm. Even if they cannot disclose all the information that they know, they can none the less provide some reassurance to Parliament and the public that the balance is being struck properly and is not being abused. I have in mind in particular the Intelligence Services Commissioner, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal and the work of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to which I pay tribute. These and a number of other independent watchdogs play a crucial role. I also pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which has the power of oversight and can direct the investigator to review the work of the intelligence agencies.
	Finally, the most important line of defence is Parliament, and particularly this House. It has always played a crucial role in oversight of the executive. It must continue to play that role. That is why I particularly welcome this debate, which is in accordance with that great tradition, which I support.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, your Lordships will understand that it is a very special pleasure for me to be able to be the first to congratulate my successor and former colleague, my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his maiden speech. He has spoken with wisdom and judgment and we all look forward to hearing from him many times on these and other subjects.
	It is a funny thing, but former secretaries of the Cabinet who have the good fortune to be elevated to this House often make their maiden speeches on issues of security. I did so myself and I remember being rebuked by Lord Bonham-Carter, who reminded me that supporting the government of the day could not be regarded as non-controversial.
	I also join in the gratitude that your Lordships have expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important issue of striking a balance between national security and individual liberty. In a funny way, it is a relatively modern issue. I doubt whether Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Francis Walsingham, the Earl of Strafford or even Sir Robert Walpole, to name but four, lay awake at night thinking about the individual liberty of the subject. However, it is an issue that is very much with us today and on which it is extremely difficult to generalise.
	Like my noble friend Lord Wilson, I had to confront the issue many times during the last 17 years of my career in public service. Perhaps my most public confrontation with it was when I gave evidence in proceedings in the courts of Australia, New Zealand and England in which the British Government of the day sought injunctions to prevent the publication of Mr Peter Wright's notorious book Spycatcher. I claim a modest entry in the Guinness Book of Records for giving evidence in the High Court in Wellington, New Zealand, on one Monday and in the High Court in London, England on the following Monday.
	I will be thus far economical with the truth, as not to risk boring your Lordships by recounting the reasons why I thought then and still believe today that the Government of the day were right to seek, on grounds of national security, to override Mr Peter Wright's individual right to publish his book, for that is only one example of the point that I am concerned to make this afternoon.
	Like my noble friend Lord Wilson, as Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, I confronted the same dilemma every time I was called on to advise the Home Secretary of the day whether he should sign a warrant for a telephone interception on grounds of national security. Clearly, intercepting someone's telephone is a gross invasion of his individual liberty, but no one, or almost no one, would say that there could be no conceivable circumstances in which a decision to intercept on the grounds of national security would be justifiable.
	So it seems to me that, in seeking to strike a balance between national security and individual liberty, it is not possible to argue that individual liberty should always prevail and that there are no conceivable circumstances under which the interests of individual liberty should not prevail. It is an issue for which it is impossible to lay down general rules about how the balance should be struck. It must be struck in each separate case; it must depend on the wider circumstances, the perceived needs of national security in those circumstances and on a judgment about whether those needs, in the particular case, override the duty to respect the rights of individual liberty.
	When I was called on to advise the Home Secretary on these judgments, the question that I asked myself, and asked the Secretary of State to consider, was whether the arguments on national security grounds for doing whatever was proposed were strong enough to justify overriding the right of individual liberty. I remember cases in which I advised, and the Minister agreed, that they were not strong enough. Of course, I remember many other cases in which I thought, and the Secretary of State agreed, that they were strong enough, but for neither of us was the decision open and shut or automatic. The balance had to be struck afresh each time.
	As my noble friend Lord Wilson reminded us, the decision about how to strike the balance will often depend on security considerations that it is not possible to disclose publicly. The decision must rest, therefore, with those who have access to that information. In the end, it comes down to a matter of trust. The Secretary of State who is called on to take the decision must be able to trust that the agencies who seek his decision will give him and his senior official advisers all the information on which his decision must depend. Like my noble friend Lord Wilson, I pay tribute to the integrity of the security services in their dealings with these matters. The Minister must be able to trust his senior official advisers to tell him when they believe that a case has not been sufficiently established. He, upon whom the responsibility of the final decision rests, has to deserve and retain the trust of Parliament and the public that his decisions will be reached responsibly after striking what he believes is the right balance.
	Some people, even some of your Lordships, may feel that such decisions should not be left to civil servants or security agencies, which might be regarded as too apt to give undue weight to security considerations. That is why it is appropriate and necessary that the decisions should be taken by Ministers, as they always have been in my experience. I say that not because Ministers necessarily have a monopoly of right judgment in these matters, although they may have, and be expected to have, a strong sense of the importance in our democratic system of the maintenance of individual liberty. Ministers carry the ultimate responsibility for decisions in this area, which may sometimes seem of little moment in comparison with the great issues of the day but are of great moment in relation to the rights of individual citizens. Those activities are now supervised, monitored and given oversight by various commissioners and the parliamentary oversight committee.
	We may not be able to lay down rules as to how a right balance should be struck in each case between national security and individual liberty, but we can and should require Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament, to be responsible for the decisions that have to be made in striking that balance.

The Lord Bishop of Chester: My Lords, in Nelson Mandela's autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, I was struck by the climax—the day of the first free election with universal suffrage. Mandela recounts that it was not the prospect of victory for the ANC or his own accession to power that elated him as much as casting a vote along with his fellow South Africans in the birth of a proper democracy, with the accompanying dignity that only democracy can convey.
	I do not believe that the Judaeo-Christian tradition can lay an exclusive claim to the emergence of modern democracy, but a certain correlation is obvious from a glance at the map. Democracies rest on a belief in the inalienable rights and freedom of each individual. The modern notion of the freedom of the individual, although much developed in modern secular thinking by J.S. Mill and many others, goes back to the Jewish belief that each person is unique, created by God and made in his image. That was continued in the Christian tradition, although there was now a sharper sense in which freedom itself was seen as a gift of God—"You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free".
	In an ancient world which saw human life as all too often dominated by fate and forces outside our control—and, indeed, with a lack of democracy—that came as a breath of fresh air. It cut across social and cultural divisions; in Christ Jesus there was to be neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor freeman, male nor female. The Christian vision of society is a deeply inclusive vision—in which, for example, the stranger is welcomed and fed unconditionally, in a sense. I need hardly add and acknowledge that societies and nations claiming a Christian vision at their heart have all too often fallen short of it, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, hinted. Let us take the obvious example of slavery. It is a matter of deep sadness that it took nearly 1,800 years before William Wilberforce and others steered an abolition Bill through Parliament.
	The Judaeo-Christian tradition also includes the idea of nation states with definite roles and purposes, both for the good of individuals and for the wider world. It is assumed that there will be rulers and governments with power which they are called on to exercise for the common good. Some suggest that the nation state has now had its day, or at least its heyday. I am not so sure, although I recognise the strains that the global society and economy generate. My own sense is that nations will relate better to one another if they do not neglect their own identity and distinctive character, although that character will always be formed in partnership and relationship with others. Britain has been a richer and more humane society as the dominant English ethos has been checked and shaped in relation to the distinctive identities of Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
	Today we are engaged in the slow but enriching task of welcoming a new wave of immigrants to our shores—from the second half of the 20th century into the 21st century. The threat from international terrorism has arisen at this time and in that context. It is a threat that threatens to destabilise our society. It is an unpredictable threat that can encourage us to fear the worst, which is not always wise, although the changing nature of our world, its sophistication and interconnectedness, means that the threat can be very large. More people lost their lives on September 11th, when no munitions were used, than at Pearl Harbor.
	There are new challenges to maintain national security, which it is the responsibility of governments to face. There can be agonising choices, as have already emerged from this debate and on the larger political scene in relation to Iraq.
	Easier travel and global communications combine with very sharp differences in wealth and freedom around the world to generate movements of peoples and the ever-increasing pressure on immigration especially into the wealthier and more democratic countries. Europe is especially open to such movement. In those circumstances, governments do indeed face sensitive and difficult decisions. For example, it would not at all surprise me to see the introduction of identity cards; and, provided that the police, immigration and security services wish to see that, I think that it can be warmly welcomed. Other speakers—including the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, in his memorable maiden speech—drew attention to a number of issues that have arisen and may yet arise.
	As for immigration policy itself, provided that it is operated with the maximum degree of humanity, I believe that government policy in general needs our support. To me it is not so much a question of whether asylum seekers might be detained on arrival—I am actually quite happy to support that—my concerns are about how they are viewed and treated when they are so detained. The standards of education, healthcare and advice which they are given must be maintained at the highest standards that we would want for our own established citizens. A few of those who arrive will indeed be intent on no good, and that possibility has to be honestly considered. But it should not be allowed to colour the general approach that we take to those who arrive in very vulnerable conditions on our shores.
	Do we recognise in the stranger-in-the-midst someone who is every bit as much a child of God and made in His image as you and I? For all societies are judged ultimately by the way in which they treat, look after and value the most vulnerable in their midst. Our immigrants and asylum seekers are first, in my view, among those. That does not answer the difficult questions and dilemmas which may yet have to be faced, but it is the foundation of a society that aspires to be called free and civilised.

Lord Selsdon: My Lords, when I was a child, perhaps I thought as a child, but I was certainly taught as a child. One of the things I was taught was about country—it may now be called geography. I was taught where the countries were and about their rivers and their values. I was taught that gold came from the Gold Coast, ivory from the Ivory Coast, grain from the prairies in Canada and coal from coal mines all around the world. When I became a man, I did not necessarily put away those childish things. I used to ask myself, "What is the value of what?" I found a map from the Department of Trade issued in the year of my birth which showed that there were more active ports in the United Kingdom and that more trade went through the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the world. We also had a great manufacturing base. I worshipped people such as Brunel and I longed to drive railway trains and do other things of that sort.
	As time went on, I found that many of those great assets of the United Kingdom had faded away. We manufactured no more. We had no more empire. I gradually wondered what we were left with. Then, suddenly, it came to mind, as through a glass darkly—it is called services. But it is not services. The one thing that we had but failed to value and appreciate is not a commodity such as gold but something else. In one of the arguments I had with friends about the importance of coffee to soldiers fighting in Latin America, where they had guns with grinders in the butt, and in other arguments about the importance of the Silk Route, I was brought back to earth by the Germans. They pointed out that semiconductors—the microchip—have overtaken all other commerce and products in the world of the sale. What did the microchip do? It set out to destroy the two great commodities that we have in this country, which we have fought for and have cost us dear—privacy and freedom. Those are commodities on which no value can be placed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, started in one way, and I am going to move on in another. Without boring your Lordships and going back to what I was taught, I simply say that I am who I am and not what someone tells me I am. I do not believe in carrying passports. I believe that security is based on knowledge. I believe that banks should know their customers under their old philosophy. "Know thy customer" should be an Act and a law. However, we are now relying on the semiconductor. We are told to, "Press one ... press two ... press three", and if we do so we may end up speaking to someone in India. If someone presses a wrong button, his account may be raided, as mine was only a week ago, by £19,000. If someone finds a card number on the Internet, before you know it, that number can be used to purchase products as far away as Cincinnati, Ohio.
	Why has that happened, and what do we do about it? I am not entirely sure, but I shall give some historical examples. My grandfather had the privilege of being Postmaster General. It was a crime to tamper with the post. Is Internet tampering a crime? Is opening other people's correspondence or recording it a crime? It should be. But in the days of Postmaster Generals, who were in the Cabinet, there was also the telephone. I was brought up in Newbury. Although we were the last to be on direct dialling, we knew that the telephone operator would not only tell people how to contact the doctor, but also listen in to the call. That was acceptable. However, we also knew that, when we went on to directory inquiries, people would not be able to get our address. If someone was ex-directory, not even his number was available.
	Now it is all very easy. I feel as though I am betraying a state secret. One can go on the Internet and type "bt.com", and up on the screen will appear the question, "What name and where?" One can type in a name and find that person's address and postcode. One can then click on "map". On to the screen will come a map with a little red circle showing where that person lives. If one is still excited and feels more adventurous, one can click on "aerial photograph", and on to the screen will appear an aerial photograph of the house. If one is clever, one can narrow down the photograph, certainly to the size of a tennis court and, with a bit of skill, to the size of a car. One can then click on "directions"—which might state, "Leave House of Lords; turn right; turn left", and give the miles to the destination. Someone at Heathrow could note the name on someone's baggage and ring up a friend. Before you know it, your private address could be gone. I give that as one example.
	Years ago, with my colleague from the bank, we introduced a draft Bill called the Protection of Privacy Bill which showed that a total of 97 Acts of Parliament gave the Government, without permission or a court order, the power of search and entry into a home. I thought that I might try to reintroduce it. On 26th June 1976, in her halcyon days as Secretary of State for prices and consumer protection, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, admitted that her officials had the right of search and entry under 15 Acts of Parliament. We have invaded privacy for so long, perhaps the moment has come to realise that security is based on the protection of privacy.

Lord Monson: My Lords, space was left for me at this point in the speakers' list but, because of an apparent computer glitch, my name was left out. I am afraid therefore that noble Lords will have to wait a little for the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis.
	I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Chalfont for introducing this important and timely debate and for his excellent speech. Securing the right balance between individual liberty and national security is never easy. In times of national emergency, governments the world over tend to panic and introduce excessively repressive measures. One thinks of the bewildered Italian waiters and German Jewish refugees interned in the Isle of Man and elsewhere in 1940 under the 18B regulations. Far worse was the treatment meted out to loyal and law-abiding Japanese-American citizens in California and elsewhere in the months and years after Pearl Harbor. The McCarthyite hysteria following the Soviet takeover of eastern Europe is perhaps another case in point.
	On the other hand, when there appears to be no immediate threat democracies tend to go too far the other way, becoming excessively lax where national security is concerned. We, for example, allow certain people who are not British subjects or Commonwealth or EEA citizens to live permanently in Britain who not only have no loyalty to this country, its institutions or its traditions, but who are positively hostile to this country and everything it stands for. That is taking liberalism to excess. We should emulate most other civilised countries and become more robust when confronted by such matters.
	Having said that, for the most part the balance tends to be tilted unnecessarily far in the reverse direction at the expense of individual liberty. This House did a quite splendid job in watering down last year's panic anti-terrorism legislation. Even so, the finished product embodies certain new offences which have nothing to do with terrorism, and gives other causes for concern.
	Is it not ridiculous for the police to be currently threatening demonstrators who make rude gestures at United States military aircraft—not that I approve of such gestures—with prosecution under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986? Threatening and abusive gestures may well merit prosecution; gestures that are merely insulting do not.
	The matter of identity cards is once again rearing its ugly head. Most unusually I disagree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. There may well be a valid case for entitlement cards, for use when obtaining treatment on the NHS and so on, but identity cards, which must by definition be compulsorily carried at all times to be effective, are another matter altogether. It would be illegal, for example, to nip out of one's front door to post a letter 50 yards down the road without carrying one's identity card. A woman sunbathing on a beach would have to conceal such a card somewhere in her bikini. As someone once pointed out, you would effectively need a passport to step outside your own front door.
	Moreover, let us remember that during World War Two British prisoners in Nazi prisoner of war camps, with only the most primitive materials and equipment at their disposal, managed to produce forged identity documents which, more often than not, fooled the Gestapo. Can one seriously imagine that, with all the advantages of modern advanced technology at their disposal, today's terrorists are not capable of forging identity cards in their millions, should they be introduced?
	Finally, I have a question for the Minister which I believe is relevant. I am particularly heartened in that respect by what my noble friend said at the outset. The Minister will not be able to answer me today, not least because the present administration are in no way responsible for what happened 16 years ago, but he may care to investigate and write to me placing a copy of his reply in the Library.
	On 10th January 1987, what was almost certainly a nuclear convoy—although this was never publicly admitted by the Government—was heading north-west from Portsmouth. Not far from Salisbury one of the heavily laden lorries skidded on black ice and ended up in a ditch. When local villagers came out to see what was happening, they were surrounded by armed soldiers and police and then interrogated. Their names and addresses were taken. Subsequently, those totally innocent villagers, who included a Methodist preacher, an insurance broker, a farmer and a local councillor, discovered that their names and addresses had been put on the files of the United States National Security Agency in Maryland. For all one knows, they are still there on file. The then government and nearly all the British media remained virtually silent on the matter—very sinister. Only the now defunct Today newspaper, in fine crusading mode, tried to pursue the truth, as did the honourable Member for Salisbury, Mr Robert Key. But neither the MP nor the newspaper got very far.
	What I should like to hear from the Minister in due course is, first, whether the names of the innocent Wiltshire villagers are still on FBI, CIA or some other American police or security files, and, secondly, what British agency disgracefully passed their names and addresses over to the Americans? Was GCHQ at fault, as has been suggested? I hope that we do not have to wait until the year 2017—under the 30-year rule—to find out.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to consider how we might achieve balance between national security and individual liberty. It is a matter of relevance—indeed of urgency—at this present time. In the few minutes available I intend to confine my remarks to what is current.
	Perhaps it will be appropriate if I illustrate what I feel by looking at the BBC's role in the context of the two criteria pertinent to this debate. Having scan read yesterday's Official Report on the Communications Bill, I was virtually overwhelmed by the incestuous nature of that debate. The plaudits of self-congratulation in terms of our broadcasting system were at variance with my experience.
	I have just spent a long weekend visiting grandchildren in Switzerland and, while there, had the dubious experience of listening to 96 hours of what used to be considered the epitome of considered research and objectivity—the BBC World Service. What a presumptuous and self-indulgent lot the correspondents turned out to be; how superficial and patronising was their reporting and, bluntly, how the Saddam Hussein regime must welcome their ill-informed assessments of what is happening around them and their predictions of what is to come.
	From a privileged position—I believe that the Minister used the term "embedded"—among our troops, they were able to analyse how the next phase of the battle was to be fought, who might be in what location, possibly where and when, and the armaments at their disposal. Should our military commanders in the field be so encumbered?
	Every instance of resistance by Saddam's forces was reported with apparent relish and evoked the prediction that the war would not be the "walk over" that Prime Minister Blair and President Bush might expect. I have not heard those two gentlemen or anyone other than the press ever suggest that events would be other than what they are turning out to be. Is the good image of "war correspondent" as we once knew it, and its association with loyalty and courage, now gone for good? How many of those out there with our troops have ever worn a uniform or ever subjected themselves to the discipline of soldering? Bluntly, are some of them qualified to be next to or near a battlefield in the first place?
	We must all have heard or seen the instantaneous TV reports of Saddam's forces shredding the bulrushes with gunfire in the hunt for, fortunately, a mythical pilot who had allegedly parachuted into the water. How many airmen's families had to sit at home envisaging their son or husband as the prey? What did that do for morale, for compassion, for individual liberty or for the truth?
	But it would be wrong to lay all the blame at the door of the correspondents alone. How have they come to be there under an obligation to provide wall-to-wall coverage of events that should not be turned into a spectacular? What do the governors of the BBC decree we should have to endure irrespective of the damage it may do? That question should have been asked long ago. Long before we actually went to war the anti-government rhetoric was stomach-turning and blatantly irresponsible. Much of what was being openly speculated upon was dangerous to our front-line troops and that continues—but even more so today—to be the case.
	The press is not exclusively the guardian of democracy. It should, at best, take second place to what happens here and in another place but, instead, it projects itself as being in conflict with democracy rather than being complementary to it.
	Since the beginning of the debate as to whether or not the United States and the United Kingdom have an obligation finally to stop Saddam Hussein—the man whose regime has been responsible for perhaps up to 1 million deaths—the BBC in particular has fostered and sustained the opposition to military action on our part. It has marshalled opposition rather than seeking to educate opinion. When it was alleged that hundreds of thousands of women and children would die in hostilities, it was accepted and regurgitated as though it were the gospel. We should at least have heard by now some acknowledgement of the exemplary manner in which our military commanders have planned and are executing this campaign with the result that fewer than 100 civilians have died—less than Saddam would slaughter in a good day under his regime.
	I said during the debate in this House on Iraq that no one marched in favour of war. Yet there has been no real effort by the news media to at least indicate the superficiality of some of the opposition of, for example, schoolchildren such as those who took time off school to demonstrate outside Parliament and bad-mouth Prime Minister Blair and President Bush. Is that what individual liberty is about? If 13 year-olds are encouraged to denigrate arbitrarily the decisions of national leaders, how can we expect them, two or three years later, to show respect for parents and teachers? The superficiality of one-line condemnations of our current national purpose is portrayed as considered opinion. It is not and has been a negation of individual liberty and a threat to security.
	Because of time constraints, I have confined myself to where the BBC is at fault, but it is not exclusively part of what is in danger of becoming a new fifth column in our society. I identify the BBC because I expect our national news agency, financed by the great British public, at least to attempt to seek perfection. We cannot and should not confine the examination of the question to this debate. The House could do worse than engage in a thorough examination of how individual liberty has been confused with indiscipline, how national integrity is suffering and national security endangered.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, the debate is very timely and important, and we must thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating it. I want to think about how well-intended national measures can cause quite a few problems for citizens. It is a matter of balance. I find it very interesting, because I have been sitting on a couple of groups that responded to two consultative papers, one from the PIU on privacy and data sharing, and the other from the Home Office on entitlement cards, benefit fraud and so on.
	The subject of identity cards and privacy often comes up in discussion with friends. Many of them take the attitude of asking what the honest person has to fear, to which my answer is, "Which one of you has never made a mistake? Have none of you got any youthful indiscretion that you would rather was forgotten?" Such indiscretions do not matter at the time, but one never knows who will hit the limelight later in life—who will become famous for some reason. Think of the unfortunate e-mails that flew around about an activist looking into the Paddington rail disaster, where someone was trying to dig up discrediting material retrospectively.
	The problem that we come down to is that, if agencies have huge powers to be able to trawl for information on people retrospectively or even proactively, one does not know what they will turn up, especially when computers can find very tenuous connections. There is the old statistical suggestion that everyone is within six jumps or links to everyone else around the world. I have had that proved to me many times on all sorts of matters. All noble Lords in the Chamber now have a link within six jumps to Osama bin Laden, because I sit on a council with someone whose wife's brother is married to one of his cousins. If someone wanted to drum that up, they could give some interesting and discrediting ideas where there was actually no connection at all.
	The problem comes with leaks. Nowadays, unfortunately, information seems to leak on a horribly regular basis. When everything was kept secret there was not such a problem. Another problem—it is an old one and is always voiced—is quis custodiet ipsos custodes. The excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, was very reassuring on that point, but I hope that matters remain that way. I would hate to see the rise of an equivalent of J. Edgar Hoover over here, and I have said before that there is always that danger.
	The other half of my thoughts have been on how we protect people. The judiciary has to worry about what I call the rules versus the effect of law. One can have lots of rules, some of which are put in place to prevent public servants from abusing their position and powers. The danger is that if one then does not accept certain things that happen to come up by accident and are outside the relevant rules, one negates the effect of law that is trying to protect people. Then there are failed prosecutions, with the failure to lock up the person who will damage the public. Suddenly the law is discredited and one tries to tighten the rules up, but that proves worse for other members of the public. We want to look at the effects sometimes rather than only the rules.
	The Data Protection Act is very interesting on that basis. It is there to protect us from all sorts of misuse of data. Many people complain about the lack of joined-up government, but half the reason that governments cannot join everything up is that they are not allowed to. There are some very stupid provisions in that Act about not being allowed to exchange addresses and other items that are quite publicly available. That is a good example of when, as the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, pointed out, one can merely click on another website. As something is freely available, why not use that to benefit people? The same applies to enhanced customer service in companies. A lot of rules inhibit being able to provide what the public want. We need to look at some such rules, because they are not sensible and do not do what they should.
	I would like to cover ID cards very quickly. The real problem with ID is that one has to catch the criminal first. Once one has caught the person it does not always matter to know who they are, although that can be useful to make other connections. It will not protect the populace merely to have ID cards among them, as the ID card itself is no protection. It has certain positive points. Taxpayers do not want their money wasted in benefit fraud and are fully entitled to make sure that it is paid to the right person, so there is justification in certain circumstances.
	Identity checking on money-laundering provisions and to prevent terrorism sounds wonderful, but I am not sure how students and children are supposed to get bank accounts. My son was quite lucky. Because he had one that I opened for him years before such measures were in place, he was able to prove where he lived. Under FSA regulations, one now has to have some proof of identity—a passport or a shotgun certificate—and proof of where one lives in the form of a utilities bill. How many children have utilities bills addressed to where they live? We are going over the top.
	I have no idea how the Government will roll out their universal bank to everyone if they comply with the rules. In that case, the Government should not fine the bigger banks, which have to bend the rules to keep their customers. I suspect that the only person that those measures prevent from money laundering is the poor Zimbabwean farmer desperately trying to get money out of the country. I am quite sure that terrorists know how to get round them.
	We again come back to the problem of people leaking information. If everything were brought together and my identity proved and centralised, I would find it embarrassing for someone to leak information to the press on how little I was worth.
	That is about all that I need to say, except that the citizen is left with a great feeling of powerlessness. We have many extra layers of government now, with the European Union, national parliaments with regional government coming in, local government, and a proliferation of agencies. We must keep a watch on their powers. I used to be very worried about and against the ECHR. I am now beginning to see where it has a purpose, but again we need balance on that.

Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on a most insightful maiden speech, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on providing the opportunity to debate this very timely subject. Not only are the issues relevant to our current society and the crisis that we face at the moment, but I fear that they will be more pressing still as the century unfolds. We are living in a world that is increasingly dominated by a technology that will enable us to monitor and manipulate the individual as never before.
	That monitoring could occur at all levels, be it molecules, cells in the body, brains or environment. We are only now starting to realise the consequences of gene manipulation, but so far it has been harder to target those in the human body. Thanks to new technologies, however, that is coming increasingly within reach so that it would be much more feasible and possible to target the genes in situ. At the level of brain cells, we are becoming used to a culture of manipulation by drugs, be they prescribed or proscribed, so that in future we will not only seek relief from mental or physical suffering but to alleviate shyness or become smarter.
	At the level of the body and the brain, nanoscience is becoming the manufacturing industry of the 21st century. In so doing, it will enable us to access, as never before, events that link our brains and our bodies. Imagine small devices in our arteries that monitor and read out our hormone or arousal levels, and the status of hunger and fear, and that being accessible to a third party.
	Finally, there is the level of the body in the environment, which was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. I want to explore that area a little further. New types of computers are currently being developed, such as quantum computers, which will soon mean that erstwhile confidential information will no longer be safe. It will be possible to access all information about any individual; such information will indeed be accumulating. Imagine in the future going into your bathroom and, in your mirror, a read out telling you that you have incipient gum disease. There is also a welter of information concerning not just your health but what you are doing moment by moment, which could be available as a kind of log. Imagine an electronic daily diary for everyone that was available for everyone to inspect. If, as may be the case, there is increasing leisure time due to the freeing-up from mundane work by high technology, individuals will be able to spend more time logging in and watching the life narratives of each other. Although that might appear to be a rather pointless way of spending your time, one has only to look at the success of the television programme "Big Brother" to realise the interest of human beings in the moment to moment—seemingly banal—existence of their co-species.
	As the century progresses, the cyber-world may be even more blurred from the real world. We already think of virtual reality, but that is a sort of gimmick. Augmented reality, as its name suggests, promises to be more pervasive. Augmented reality would enable one to see the world with additional information that would not normally be gleaned by your senses. Imagine going to a gathering or party and, as you look at someone through your glasses, their CV or further information about them flashing up in front of your face; they would be doing to same to you. Again, we will have more information provided about the individual and will therefore start to see a breakdown in the traditional barrier of our brains and bodies as individuals when that firewall, as it were, is breached. However, it does not stop there; it can be more pervasive still.
	Already, scientists are able to grow brain cells on integrated circuits. We know that brain cells can communicate using electric signals. Those can be interfaced with conventional electronics. Again, one has another type of computer, the neuro-chip, which is a sort of carbon/silicon hybrid. Even more relevant to this debate is the fact that because carbon and silicon can talk to each other so easily, we can now have implants in the brain. That might sound like science fiction but already at Emory University there is a quadriplegic patient—a patient who is paralysed from the neck down—who was unable to move. He has received an implant into his brain containing something called nerve growth factor, which, as its name suggests, enables brain cells to grow into it. Over a few months, those brain cells have connected with the electronics so that now—incredibly—the patient can "will" a cursor to move on a computer screen. That is clearly a marvellous medical advance but, on the other hand, it raises the spectre of direct insertion of information into the brain. Imagine e-mail going directly into your brain.
	My view is that although that is not exactly likely—because the physiology of the brain is not organised in a way that will enable specific targeting—it is all the more sinister for that because we will now be able to monitor or disrupt thought processes, albeit directly but none the less haphazardly. That is because the brain is, above everything, highly malleable.
	The relationship between the brain and the environment is a two-way street. We see the world in terms of the associations that we have already formed, but every moment we are alive those connections are being modified by what is coming in. The new technologies will enable us to improve our performance in the world and, indeed, our quality of life. But, by the same token, we will be more open to third-party access and targets for terrorism.
	We are facing a century where the new technologies—molecular biology, the development of so-called "smart drugs", nanoscience and, in particular, information technology—are giving us two possibilities. On the one hand, they are giving us a means of manipulating and monitoring the individual as never before, and, on the other hand, they are a means of gaining great insights into the questions that we have been asking for a long time about the human mind, such as: what makes you the individual you are, and how does the brain generate consciousness?
	Which way are we going to go in terms of those two possibilities? In the words of the late Carl Sagan:
	"It is suicidal to create a society dependent on science and technology in which hardly anybody knows anything about science and technology".
	There is one way in which we can try to offset the suicidal scenario—that is, to help to develop a scientifically literate society.

Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow my noble friend Lady Greenfield, who gave us a tantalising—if rather fearsome—glance at the future. She may spell that out in her book called, I believe, "Tomorrow's People", which may be coming out later in the year. We also heard in the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Wilson of Dinton what it is like at the top and the difficult decisions that have to be made with information to which we do not have access but the Cabinet does on an almost daily basis. Above all, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Chalfont for instigating our debate on this important subject. He warned us about the implications of the loss of individual control over our activities through possible intrusion by security agencies using the latest surveillance technologies.
	That is the same kind of technology that allows us to see on our television screens each evening, in real time and from the comfort of our own home, the harsh reality of the battlefield many thousands of miles away. We have been shown with considerable pride by the controllers of the war in Iraq how the Army, Navy and the Air Force use the latest electronic surveillance devices to identify with pinpoint accuracy friend from foe on the battlefield before destroying enemy buildings, equipment or personnel. However, things can go drastically wrong, as they did last week, when the identification processes are misread or malfunction under battle conditions. That resulted in the tragic loss of one of our aircraft and its brave crew and in the more recent sad loss of one of our tanks through "friendly fire".
	Does the Minister agree that robot systems of identification will always be as fallible as their human masters who control and design them? Does he agree that whatever legislation connected with national security we may pass in this House should make allowance for those defects?
	We live in a world in which IT and AI—that is, information technology and artificial intelligence—dominate virtually all aspects of our life. It is a world in which personal and national security plays a major part. It is also a world in which our personal identity may have to be refined, as will individual liberty, if and when ID locators control our movements and artificial intelligence our personal thoughts.
	Is it that we are about to re-visit in 2004 George Orwell's world of Nineteen Eighty-Four? I think not; that is, not just yet. The Minister will no doubt agree that that may be unlikely in view of the poor statistics provided in the latest report of the Public Accounts Committee. The report points out that the 2001 census failed to identify and count at least 1 million of the population. That defect, according to today's Daily Mail, included one in five of the real population in 10 London boroughs and two-thirds of the people in one particular borough. Does he also agree that it is precisely in those areas in London where undesirable elements of our society can hide themselves from authority? Is not that the reason that London has been chosen—or apparently been chosen—by many terrorist organisations as a useful base? Will he reassure the House that his department will use all the latest technology at its disposal to see if those statistics can be improved?
	The report from the Science and Technology Select Committee, to which many noble Lords have referred, entitled Chips for Everything—the House debated it on 14th March—explained that microchips were and are the key to that future world. IT has created a world in which we can monitor not only ourselves but also virtually anything that moves. To take a simple example—that of farming, in which I have a declared interest—the management of animal husbandry is being transformed by the advances in the electronic monitoring of stock through ID locator implants. Do the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and all those of us who are for identify cards agree to implants that could show our location all the time? That would cover the point of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the lady in the bikini. There would be no problem carrying an implanted identity card into the briny.
	On the subject of identity cards, I believe that in Israel shoppers all have implants so that the large department stores can monitor their identity as they go through the door. If we are for identity cards, then we must go all the way. Do we agree that they will be part and parcel of our lives or must we wait for the first ghastly suicide bombers before we start to consider such matters here? I believe that the noble and learned Lord should consider the matter and that all those who talk about identity cards should simultaneously consider implants.
	The use of surveillance cameras and sophisticated IT in organising vehicle movement has, again, in my view, brought about an improvement to central London. Motorists are able to put up with the inconvenience and cost. There has been a loss of liberty, but there has also been a compensating benefit.
	Bearing in mind that the surveillance technology of the kind referred to by my noble friend Lady Greenfield, which is available in this country and to modern societies, is also available to despotic regimes, such as the one that the coalition forces are attempting to replace in Iraq, will there be any form of restriction on the export of such products to those areas?

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, for reminding us what a horrific world it would be if everyone knew everything about us, including what we were doing and where we were going. Privacy is a terribly important part of being human, from the first time we tell a fib to our parents about what we have been doing or where we are going to the ordinary business of running our everyday lives. It is absolutely essential that a large part of our lives should be our own and not belong to or be open to other people.
	I do not believe that I was entirely convinced by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, that the bureaucracy can be trusted to safeguard our liberty; nor was I convinced by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that the history of the Church is one of liberty. It certainly was not according to the way I was taught the history of the Church. I believe that, beyond anything else, the preservation of liberty is the business of Parliament and of others who are not concerned with government or, in other ways, with the powers in the land. They must ensure that this critical part of our being a free and worthwhile nation is preserved.
	When we consider legislation which, in particular, poses a danger to liberty, we must not give the Government blanket permissions; we must justify each and every trespass. We must ensure that the Government do not only do things because they can but that, when they do things, they are effective. We must also ensure that the Government consider all possible ways of achieving the same end without the diminution of our liberty.
	It is common that authorities do things because they can or that they choose to do the things that they can do rather than the things that are important. I remember running a business in Sydenham. One year we had a fraud, but the police would not touch it. We had an armed robbery, and the police took three hours to arrive. But when there was a fight in the pub opposite, two vans turned up within 30 seconds because that was something with which the police felt equipped to deal.
	During my time in this House, we have passed legislation on hand guns which was said to be to deal with the problem of the use of such guns in crime. However, the use of hand guns in crime has increased astronomically since then. The legislation that we passed did no good at all in terms of benefits to citizens, but it did a great deal of harm to a large number of people who enjoyed an Olympic sport. I believe that we need to give more care to infringing on liberty simply because it is easy to do.
	My noble friend Lord Marlesford raised the question of ID cards. He said, "Now we can do anything". We cannot do anything because we are faced with the practicalities of working with human beings. That is why something as obvious as passports is not properly controlled and checked. It is desperately easy to do, but a government who cannot, after all their years in office, answer my Written Questions electronically will be seriously challenged when it comes to something mildly more difficult, such as passports. One should not think that just because one can see the theoretical benefits of ID cards they will be achieved in practice. We must think through the way such things will work with humanity.
	DNA is useful in the way that it is used at present. However, if it is used universally, then one will begin to encounter problems with it. Some people have two DNA structures. If a person has a blood transfusion, he will have two kinds of DNA within him. If a drop of blood is spilt from a thief who has just had a blood transfusion, whose blood will it be? If someone has received a bone marrow transplant, which kind of DNA will appear at the scene of a crime? Once DNA becomes universal, we must ask whether it is sufficiently accurate to distinguish perfectly between all 50 million of us. No, it is not. There is an error factor which means that, if DNA is used universally, problems will be encountered. If its usage becomes common, then, whatever detection system we use, people will find ways of giving the wrong DNA at the crucial time.
	The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, talked about chipping. Even the current low level of chipping that we have for dogs is got round by criminals. If we applied it to people, the criminal and terrorist classes would find ways to deceive the system when they wished to do so.
	We also need to consider the effectiveness of what we are proposing. Many noble Lords may remember the Government's proposals on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill and how they were going to control the flow of information over the Internet. It took a long while to persuade the Government to back off that and to consider the practicalities. They are now doing so. One of the great contributions of this House to legislation is that, two or three years after the passage of that Bill, the substantive measures are still not in place because the Government are at last considering the practicalities.
	As usual, the answer is that, where you come up against something that threatens liberty and where the Government feel that they have to make incursions on liberty, there is often a better way of doing things. In the case of the RIP Bill, the answer is human intelligence. One can do a great deal more with good old human intelligence than with electronic intelligence unless it happens to be GCHQ, which has real ability to deal with high quantities of data and sort through them. The ordinary policeman is far better off with human intelligence.
	Let us consider the question of a terrorist trying to spread an engineered virus through the human population. It will not do much good to tie us all up in knots in trying to prevent that happening. It will not do much good if, in trying to make the life of an individual terrorist more difficult, all our lives are made more difficult, because the terrorist will find a way round it. In ensuring that we know who is doing what and where, we need to employ good old-fashioned systems through human intelligence. We do not need to infringe liberty on many of the occasions when the Government ask us to do so.

Lord Ouseley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for initiating this debate and for allowing us the opportunity to hear such contrasting presentations on this very important issue. I was particularly pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, and I congratulate him on his remarkable maiden speech. I was also pleased to hear the contrasting speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, which offered us an insight into the cyberworld. It is both fascinating and frightening.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I come to this debate from the human rights perspective of someone who is concerned about the rights and liberties of individuals. The increasing threats to our liberty posed by serious and violent crimes and the fear of crime and terrorism place a greater and increasing reliance on more intensive activity by the police and security services in protecting individual and collective rights and freedoms in our democratic society.
	Increased surveillance is an inevitable part of the security services. At times of high risk, such as these, we are indebted to those who have combined intelligence-led operations with legal compliance—I stress legal compliance—to deter and detain those who represent the greatest threats to our well-being.
	Surveillance and its reliance on advanced technologies, however, means that more people are potentially under investigation as many parts of the state's apparatus garners information about us, as individuals, tracking our personal telecommunications and electronic communications and other personal data. My personal view, over a period of time—and shared by others to whom I have spoken—was that if you have nothing to hide you have no need to worry. But personal information is mine and not the state's. It is already the case that agencies such as the police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, Customs and Excise, the Inland Revenue and the intelligence services know more about individuals than they can reasonably remember themselves.
	However, information can be used irresponsibly and covertly to destroy the lives of individuals. Only a few weeks ago the editor of the Sun admitted openly to a Select Committee in another place that payments have been made by newspapers to the police for information. I have heard no significant repudiation by the state of such activities.
	Of course, it is at times like these, when national security is of such concern, that we witness the emergence of scapegoating, victimisation and stereotyping of types of people who might be regarded as "not one of us"—or to use one of the many post-9/11 mantras, "You are either with us or against us". The issues of Islamaphobia, racism and xenophobia have the potential to influence official reactions and responses to national security concerns. Those issues also influence individual attitudes and behaviour. The real concerns held by many people about possible human rights violations cannot be overlooked when national security decisions are being made. There is a gap in the trust held by sections of the public over the pervasive intrusion into the privacy of their lives by the state's agencies.
	How can there be trust when it is known that personal information can be disclosed and is disclosed without respect for the person and unknown to the person? What can the Government do alongside the state agencies to build trust and to help more people to understand the conflicting demands? For starters, they could do more to generate genuine public debates. They can make more information available on a need-to-know basis, including wider availability at accessible public places.
	Furthermore, there should be a thorough review of all existing legislation on privacy-intrusive activity to ascertain that it is conducted in accordance with the law and with codes of practice and that it adheres to the principles and rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights. Article 8 of the convention asserts both the right of individuals to have their privacy protected and respected, while undoubtedly recognising the legitimacy of certain public authorities lawfully to interfere with such a right in specifically prescribed circumstances.
	It is the potential abuse of power and information and how it could be used in discriminatory ways against visible minorities, asylum seekers, refugees, travellers and other vulnerable sections of our society that continue to cause most concern. It is evident to many that the proliferation of new technologies and their increasing advancement will be of benefit to those in the security and protection services. It is also crucial that the legal framework to control, to conduct and to regulate the use thereof and to ensure accountability is clearly understood by the public.
	It is the Government's responsibility to set out such a framework of public accountability and to convince us of the legitimacy of intrusion into privacy rights so that we can understand the real benefits arising therefrom. Those people who run the law enforcement agencies and the security services should have a statutory duty continuously to engage in public confidence raising and trust building. Their use of privacy-intrusive activities and being accountable for operating in non-discriminatory ways also requires continuous parliamentary scrutiny.
	We have a responsibility to the citizens of the UK to strive to get the balance right to maintain national security while protecting individual liberty in our democratic society. When the Minister responds I hope that he will acknowledge the importance of allaying the fears of vulnerable communities and that he will indicate a commitment to engage the public in understanding the contradictions involved, the actions being pursued and the safeguards being applied.

Lord Dahrendorf: My Lords, a few months ago, a very senior officer in the US Attorney General's department was asked about the prisoners taken in Afghanistan and brought to the American military exclave at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He said, "We could have shot them on the battlefield". To the response that that was not what happened and in reply to a question about the status of the prisoners now, the official replied: "They have no rights, they are combatants". Recent reports suggest that those people are held in cages and in a condition of extreme humiliation, without representation or the prospect of legal redress.
	I realise of course that that is not the subject of the debate, but it illustrates what can happen when individual liberties are suspended in the name of national security. Prisoners of an undeclared war are an extreme case. However, the lines of jeopardy can lead quite rapidly from those suspected of terrorist acts, through to so-called "enemy aliens", to members of groups regarded as suspect for some reason, to all citizens in democracies under threat who have to forego some of their basic rights for a period in order to preserve the integrity of their country.
	I have seen enough threats in my life not to be naive about the balance of liberty and security which has to be struck in such conditions. To that extent, I certainly agree with the introductory comments of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, and with the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, when he emphasised that there is no hard and fast line but a shifting process of striking a balance. Given the natural proclivities of popular sentiment and of governments, I am also aware that it is often liberty that is at greater risk than security. It cannot be said too often therefore that it weakens the effective defence of our values if we violate them at home. Unless we remain jealous of our rights, the suspension of individual liberties in the name of national security can reach a point at which one wonders whether we still live in a democracy worth defending. Liberty must, at all times, including times of clear and present danger, be the guiding principle of our actions.
	One of the reasons why I am proud to be a member of your Lordships' House is that, when faced with legislation restricting individual liberties, we have done everything in our power to defend basic rights. One of the reasons why I am proud to have become a citizen of this country is that even at times of war individuals remain free to express their views. These days I disagree with the protesters out in the street, but they must have the right to make their voices heard. The fact that Parliament listens, indeed that members of the Government and notably the Prime Minister engage with dissident views, is a source of strength.
	Let me add two footnotes of a more practical nature. The subject of our debate rightly refers to individual rights. At times of war or of terrorist threats to security, the individual is often an early victim. People begin to think of friend and foe, of them and us. Individuals are subsumed into categories, and they keep, or lose, their rights because they belong to categories. To some extent that is understandable, but on closer inspection it is neither practical nor acceptable. It is in fact an affront to the principles of liberal democracies.
	Examples are unfortunately numerous. Suffice it to say at this time that the terrorist acts of 9/11 or Saddam Hussein's crimes must never be turned into a generalised exclusion, let alone persecution, of Muslims, Arabs or indeed Iraqis. It is essential to realise that liberty adheres to individuals. Security in a liberal order is therefore defended against individuals who threaten it and violate the law. It cannot be right to seek to exclude whole categories from human and civil rights.
	My second footnote is familiar but warrants repetition. Threats to security are in principle limited in time. Wars have an end—an early end one hopes. The trouble with the notion of a "war on terrorism" is that it is possible to claim that it never ends and to use this claim to justify restrictions on the liberty of citizens for ever. It is a crucial task of Parliament to make sure that governments are prevented from abusing legitimate temporary objectives for illicit permanent measures. If ever there was a case for time limits on the validity of primary and secondary legislation, it is in restrictions on individual liberty in the name of national security in a democratic society.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, for bringing the debate to the attention of the House, for introducing it and for underlining what a profoundly complex issue we are trying to address in the House today.
	We recognise that a government's first duty is to protect their citizens. We also recognise that, in protecting their citizens, they must bear in mind that it would be foolish to destroy the very thing they are attempting to protect; namely, individual liberty.
	In the debate we have interestingly heard a great deal about this balance. I want to pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, who spoke not only with his characteristic modesty but also with great wisdom and experience. I am sure the House will look forward to his future contributions, recognising that few noble Lords can claim the breadth of experience that he brings to the Chamber. It was also extremely important and significant to hear from his predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong. I shall say more about his speech later.
	It is perhaps appropriate for me to quote the words of that very distinguished Member of this House—at whose memorial service many of us will be tomorrow—Lord Jenkins of Hillhead. He said:
	"At a time of threat, to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing is a natural human—and perhaps particularly ministerial—reaction. But something, anything, is by no means always better than nothing. You can do more harm than good. It should be very carefully directed at the threat and not splayed over a wide area of increase in executive powers".—[Official Report, 27/11/01; col. 200]
	We all recognise, as my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf so eloquently said, that there is a huge danger of destroying liberties and then finding it virtually impossible to bring them back again.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield—who, because of the miracles of technology to which she referred, I was able to see on the video system in this place—referred to the effect of information technology. It brings about the possibility of an almost Orwellian world, one in which almost everything depends upon the objective for which such techniques are being used. We know there has been a huge increase in the incidence of surveillance, ranging from CCTV to systems which mean that we can be seen in detail from many thousands of feet above the surface of the globe. As a number of noble Lords have said—for example, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—this means there is a much greater threat to the individual privacy of citizens even in a democracy than existed before information technology had opened all these possibilities to us. We need to think about how we can create a framework which establishes an adequate and successful degree of regulation of these new technologies.
	Perhaps, to strike a more cheery note, I might quote the famous Russian historian, Dr Solovyev, who said that liberty rose in the interstices of the state. I suppose one might be grateful that so many computer systems appear to be so extremely inefficient that time and again in this House we hear about how they have gone seriously wrong. It does cheer one up quite a lot.
	I offer considerable praise to the Government and to this House, among others, for the way in which the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act was handled. One thing that happened in that Act—and your Lordships had a great deal to do with it—was continually to tie it back to its purpose; to remind our citizens and ourselves that the purpose of the Act was to counter terrorism, not to counter any kind of bad behaviour we might care to try to deal with. By tying it back in that way I think we created both an effective Act and also one that was to some extent proof against the danger of being spread beyond its purposes. The Government behaved imaginatively in accepting many of the amendments tabled in your Lordships' House and produced in consequence a better Act than we would have had without those amendments or without the Government's initiative.
	It is perhaps appropriate to quote one statistic. Since the Terrorism Act was passed, according to my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, who was charged with a review of the system, 304 arrests have been made, 40 people have been charged, three people have been convicted, 13 people are still in detention, and not a single charge of terrorism has been laid. That shows how it is easy to get matters out of balance.
	In that context I say two other things. First—I think rightly—we have tried in this country to set up a system of reviews. The Government have pointed to the problem of reviewing cases in open court when they often concern detailed and secret intelligence information. The system of reviews that has been installed and the establishment of my noble friend Lord Carlile to review the working of the Act, while certainly not perfect, contribute a great deal to protecting liberty in the face of one of the most intensive threats one could invent, challenging it, and indeed making its presence known.
	We have, at least to some extent, managed to find the balance to which the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong, referred. It is crucial to be able to establish the innocence of those detained because, by the nature of security, a number of people will be arrested and held who are innocent of what they have not yet been charged with. It is absolutely crucial that we find a method that enables those innocent people to escape from the clutches of the law and from detention in prison. I hope we have the balance more or less right. We have just extended the power of detention for another year. Any democrat is frightened of the power of detention without charge. Rightly, it needs to be reviewed and looked at continually.
	I wish to say something about the restrained and sensible behaviour of the police—not in every case, but in a great many cases. On more than one occasion fairly late at night I have visited the demonstration outside the Houses of Parliament in order to talk to some of those involved. I spent some time in the company of those demonstrators and of the police. With few exceptions, the police behaved with astonishing restraint and humour. Given the extent to which our liberties depend upon the behaviour and restraint of the police and the endless pressures brought to bear on them by the current situation, it is appropriate and right that this House should praise them for the way they stand up evening after evening, day after day, to the pressures of passionate political opinion expressed on both sides. It is crucial that they do. It is part of what it means to be a free society. If one looks at what happens to demonstrators in many other parts of the world, including some highly developed parts of the world, I think we can say that the police have been an important bastion of our liberties, although not always blameless.
	I say a word which follows on from what my noble friend Lord Dahrendorf said. It is perhaps the most unpopular thing I feel obliged to say, but I think it needs saying. Rightly, the Secretary of State for Defence, Mr Geoffrey Hoon, complained bitterly in another place about the treatment of our prisoners of war in Iraq. His remarks were echoed in this House by the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes. That is quite right. It is appalling and humiliating for prisoners of war to be displayed on television for the delight, laughter or satisfaction of people throughout the world who happen to be on the side of those who took those prisoners.
	However, because double standards are dangerous things, we must also remember that the prisoners taken to Guantanamo Bay were also displayed on television—on CNN, to be precise. I happen to have seen the broadcast. They were displayed wearing black hoods, kneeling in the dust and, in most cases, with their heads between their knees. When we talk about the Geneva Convention, it must be binding on all sides—all of the more on those with higher standards, because they set the standards for the world. It is therefore important that if we rightly—I emphasise that word—complain about the displaying of our own prisoners of war, we must draw our allies' attention to the importance of ensuring that they too uphold the word and letter of the Geneva Convention.
	In that context, I straightforwardly ask: what representations have the Government made about those British citizens who are currently still held at Guantanamo Bay? I am told—rightly or wrongly, I do not know—that there are some six British citizens in that condition. When they took their case to the Appeal Court—again I give profound credit to the judiciary, who time and again stand up against popular prejudice to ensure that the law is upheld—the Master of the Rolls, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, said that those men had been cast into "a legal black hole".
	They may be guilty; they may be innocent. But, as British citizens, I believe that they have the right to be represented by the Government and for questions to be asked about why they cannot have access to lawyers or any kind of court. We should make it plain, as the mother of the whole idea of the rule of law, that it should apply even to the least of our citizens. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester referred to Nelson Mandela. I should like to cite another of his remarks:
	"A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens, but its lowest ones".
	In our present situation, what could be much lower than a Muslim Briton held in Guantanamo?
	Finally, I cite my noble friend Lord Carlile of Berriew, because what he says reflects the wisdom of the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong. He states:
	"I have reflected too on the need to avoid an over-reaction to a perception of danger—the perception that sometimes may be greater than the reality. The balance is a difficult one".
	Several noble Lords have referred to the temptation for politicians to play safe. Playing safe means that time and again they place the balance on the side of security, because they will be blamed if things go wrong. If they place the balance against liberty, they will not be blamed. And, long ahead, people will forget the part they played in undermining it.
	I conclude by citing perhaps the wisest words of all uttered by someone whom I think that none of us could possibly question or doubt in terms of our national standing—none other than the former Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. It was preceded by a remark by the then Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, who said, and I weigh these words:
	"What the House must do is to keep watch on the Home Secretary".
	As Home Secretary, he pointed out that Home Secretaries, more than most Ministers, are under constant temptation to ensure that security is the overriding consideration, because they will be blamed if anything goes wrong. Winston Churchill later said:
	"You might however consider whether you should not unfold as a background the great privilege of habeas corpus and trial by jury, which are the supreme protection invented by the English people for ordinary individuals against the state".
	I especially weigh the following words:
	"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government, whether Nazi or Communist".
	Those words still echo here; I want to be quite sure that they echo among the courts and in the attitudes of our allies. I commend the Motion to the House.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I can think of no one who could have led your Lordships better in this debate than the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont. He brought his finely honed mind to bear on the great problem of balancing the interests of national security against the interests of the individual citizen and his liberty. I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on an erudite and enlightening speech based on years of experience serving government.
	We are all mindful of the fact that we are conducting our discussion at a time of war—a war against terrorism as well as a war against Saddam Hussein. National security is an especially sensitive issue and a prominent consideration in our minds. As noble Lords have said, traditionally, in wartime the citizen is prepared to allow his liberty to be temporarily curtailed in the interests of all—as represented by the state. But the state tends to err on the side of zeal. It takes no chances and therefore takes more powers than it may need.
	All that may be tolerable in hostile circumstances, provided that our liberties are returned to us in due course. They seldom are, as Simon Jenkins pointed out in The Times last Friday. The headline on his article says it all:
	"In any conflict, the true victor is always the State".
	There has been spate of anti-terrorist legislation, much of it controversial and some of it still under scrutiny by Parliament. Some of it arises from our obligations under European Union law. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out to the Government, many of our rights are affected. It may be some consolation that both Europe and the United States face much the same problems as we do.
	I am bound to say that the situation in which we now find ourselves is exceptional in that while our forces are engaged in open conflict with Iraq, possible terrorist attacks at home may be instigated not by our principal antagonist but by other "enemies in our midst", as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, described them.
	The recent arrest and detention of people suspected of being international terrorists reminded some of us of similar detentions of Nazi sympathisers in the United Kingdom during the Second World War. But the dimension of the problem appears to be much greater now than it was then—especially, perhaps, because of the Northern Ireland situation and the huge volume of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers, of whose loyalty and reactions we cannot be certain. There are, I believe, 21,000 Iraqis in this country.
	Nevertheless, we should give due consideration to Liberty's finding that,
	"of more than 7,000 people detained in Britain under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, the vast majority have been released without charge and only a tiny fraction have ever been charged with anything remotely resembling terrorism".
	We are reluctant to lock people up without charge in this country, but our formidable anti-terrorism legislation allows us to do so. We are also told that constant vigilance and surveillance is essential for the protection of our trusting society, and we have a number of authorities with the necessary powers to carry out such surveillance, intercept communications and so forth, with the authority of the Home Secretary.
	What concerns us is that such activity may get out of hand and become a tool of tyranny. We do not want to create a Stasi state, as in East Germany, where the state's omniscience about the citizen deliberately reduced him to a slavish subject. The guardians must be guarded against themselves and the potential abuse of powers—a danger which is ever present. Like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I, too, was reassured by the statements given by the noble Lords, Lord Wilson and Lord Armstrong.
	Although I believe with Dylan Thomas that,
	"After the first death there is no other",
	by which he meant to emphasise the unique sanctity of individual human life, I think that the massive scale and horrendous nature of the death and injury threatened by terrorists is a relevant factor. The terrorist threat builds up fear in society at large and adds to the justification for exceptional measures to frustrate such activity by every possible means.
	The magnitude and dreadful nature of certain types of crime excite similar public antipathy and horror. I am referring to child abduction and murder, serial killings and rape, the trade in hard drugs and the gang culture and gun crime that so often accompanies it. The war against crime is always with us and we know that we must sacrifice some of our liberties and right to privacy if we are to gain and maintain an upper hand in that war. Our willingness to sacrifice grows with the enormity of the crime and our horror in the face of it. The lesser the crime, the less willing we are to sacrifice.
	There have been a number of references today to freedom and privacy in communication, now vastly enhanced in scope by modern technology and likely to be enhanced further if even a quarter of what the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, foresaw is realised. And I have no reason to doubt that it will not all be realised.
	The Government's order last year listing the authorities that might claim access to communications data—the who, when and where but not the contents of communication—was dubbed a "Snoopers Charter" and was withdrawn by the Home Secretary after a hefty barrage of criticism. This month, a new consultation paper was published with a healthy and helpful admission that he had got it wrong. And, of course, the Government had got it wrong in the sense that every Tom, Dick and Harry in authority appeared to have staked a claim to access.
	Without going into detail, the new consultation document seeks to limit and justify those who may seek access and to discipline them in the event of abuse. In his foreword, the Home Secretary twice mentions "Big Brother". It is not him that we fear so much as his mischievous little brothers in all kinds of institutions up and down the land.
	Annex E of the paper contains a number of interesting, fundamental questions for a broader debate and is relevant to our discussion today. The first question is: is there a contradiction between an expectation of respect for individual privacy—"your privacy"—and an expectation of necessary and proportionate intrusion into the privacy of those acting contrary to the public interest—"someone else's privacy"?
	There are further questions about what protection for privacy the citizen should expect in order to maintain the balance between his privacy and his interest in a society safe from crime; about how the trust of the public can be won in the use by the authorities of techniques to invade privacy; and about how the benefit to the public can be shown and reassurance provided. Should unlawful privacy violation by criminals or law enforcers be acknowledged as a crime? Indeed, these are major questions—some easier to answer than others—that apply not just to the area of private communications but to a wider area in which, for example, CCTV is used for more sophisticated purposes than its original purpose.
	My own provisional conclusion, like that of my noble friend Lord Lucas, is that the state must present ample justification every time a fresh invasion of privacy or curtailment of liberty is proposed, along with as much protection against official abuse and safeguards as can possibly be given. And most importantly, the state should try to anticipate how and when the limitation can be brought to an end and the liberty lost can be restored. A sunset clause can be a great restorative, as the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, implied. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance but that vigilance is not limited to the state and its organs, it extends to the individual citizen who must not only assist the state to be vigilant but be wary of the state itself.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, on securing this debate at this particular time. I thank him in two respects. First, his speech set the tone for the debate; namely, the highest possible level. Secondly, it framed the questions and gave some tentative answers in a way that really informed the debate.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, on his maiden speech. The noble Lord knows that everyone says how wonderful maiden speeches are, but his really was exceptional. From personal experience, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, will bring exceptional wisdom and human warmth to the proceedings of this House. We are truly lucky to have him both in this debate and in others that will follow. I welcome him and congratulate him on his speech.
	This is an incredibly well-timed debate. Armed intervention is going on in Iraq. We are still in the aftermath of the events of 11th September 2001. The balance between national security and individual freedom is one of the most important issues that both the executive and the legislature have ever had to face. They face it all the time. The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, is right that every case must be looked at on its individual merits. But that is not a sufficient basis on which to approach the issue. Some principles must be set forth so that there are some guidelines by which one steers a course in relation to striking that difficult balance. Those principles will not provide the answer. Each individual case has to be looked at, but on the basis of those principles.
	Perhaps I may suggest some principles on which one should proceed. First, our society is based on the liberty of the individual. It is what we fight to protect where necessary. Our starting point, therefore, in a free democratic society, must be that the liberty of the individual should not be limited unless a proper case for limitation is established. Plainly, threats to national security can form the basis of such a case, but only on the basis that the threat to liberty which the threat to national security poses justifies that limitation of liberty. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, is right. At all stages, one must be careful to ensure that the limitation one imposes, either permanently or in the face of an actual threat, is proportionate to the threat which is posed.
	In applying the particular principles, it is important to dwell for a moment on what we mean by "liberty". We all know what we mean by liberty. One particular strand running through the debate was that liberty includes the right to be private. One's privacy is an important commodity which one is entitled to protect in a free society. The constant reference to that is caused partly by the growth of information technology, which makes so much of what one does available to a wider public, but is also due to the way that society has developed. People have less and less trust in government and large organisations. Therefore, they look much more for protection in relation to their privacy.
	We need a full and properly informed debate about when is it appropriate to infringe the privacy of individual members of society. We all agree that privacy can be infringed when it is necessary to fight crime, but what is the precise nature of the circumstances, what is the right sanction when intrusion goes too far, what are the right protections that need to be provided?
	At the very minimum, whenever we, as a society, propose to infringe people's privacy, there should be a completely transparent debate about the reasons for that infringement and a clear setting out of safeguards. We are only in the process of that debate; it has not been concluded.
	The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, referred to the consultation document Access to Communications Data which has been published by the Home Office and which actively seeks to promote debate. There are many unresolved aspects of the privacy debate that we need to address in the context of the world described by the noble Lords, Lord Selsdon and Lord Marlesford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield.
	The noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, complained that you could find his address and a map of how to get to his house. As he was saying that I thought, "Well, the telephone directory has done that for some time". The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, said:
	"Almost anything we want to do is possible".
	Aldous Huxley speaks again. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, then made the appropriate point that everything we do may well be possible but the track records of large organisations in trying to introduce computer systems suggests that not everything is possible. The noble Baroness suggested that it will soon be possible to have an e-mail sent direct to your brain. These are three different world views in relation to which we need to address the issue of privacy.
	I digress in making these remarks—they go to the question of what are the liberties of the individual that need to be protected—but I thoroughly endorse the tone of the debate which suggests that privacy is one of them. We need a proper debate on what are the limits in that respect.
	Let me suggest a number of other principles. Any limitations on individual freedom must be proportionate to the threat; they must be sanctioned by law and cannot take place on an ad hoc basis; and they must be implemented in a way which ensures that there are safeguards and that the activities of the executive are subject to monitoring, scrutiny and accountability. If limitations are implemented excessively, the framework must ensure that the monitoring, scrutiny and accountability arrangements are likely to identify and remedy such excesses. In other words, if protections are put in place they must be effective.
	We all recognise that in some circumstances they will not be totally effective and that in many other cases they will be. The trial of a person charged with a crime is an effective scrutiny. Where one is dealing with national emergencies and with different circumstances, obviously the arrangements will be one step further removed. But, in every case, there must be monitoring, scrutiny and accountability.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf said, a limitation should last only as long as the threat that justifies it. In some circumstances, the threat which justifies it will last for ever—for example, in fighting crime, the restriction of individual liberty will be justified as long as there is a threat of crime. But the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, is right. There will be occasions when restrictions which are justified by a particular threat will no longer be justified once the threat has disappeared.
	Those seem to me to be the basic principles. I am sure that there are others, but they are the starting points for building a framework of principles.
	Governments have to face a number of problems when they are dealing with these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said, the Government frequently know more than the individual citizen. The Government also have a duty, which the individual citizen does not have, to anticipate threats. It is not only important for the Government to respond to a threat once it has matured, they must also anticipate what may be coming down the pipe. The extent to which the Government are able to acknowledge threats will vary from case to case.
	Although the Government know more and must anticipate threats, above all, in our society, they must persuade before they can extend limitations on personal freedom. That is the great safeguard in our system. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, very fairly, that the Government's legislation on terrorism has been "fairly accurately targeted". He went on to say that that was partly as a result of the work of your Lordships' House.
	The debate post-11th September in the body politic in the United Kingdom was between the executive and Parliament as to the right way forward. It was informed by what was politically possible against the knowledge that the Government brought to it. In my view, it produced the right result.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to extracts from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and said that we may have got it wrong in a number of respects. We should not fool ourselves that we will always get legislation precisely right, but we did put in place monitoring arrangements to study how the legislation worked in practice. The way in which we operate generally produces a much more accurate result than we give ourselves credit for. In those circumstances, it is perhaps fair to recognise that the executive has a role to perhaps press a little harder than Parliament would otherwise expect so that the debate to which I have referred can be concluded. So those are the principles and that is how it has worked in practice.
	Perhaps I may pick up on three other points that have been raised in the debate and which may have something to do with the Government. First, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act has been greatly misunderstood. Under that Act we are seeking to bring coherence and scrutiny to the process by which a wide range of bodies can ask for information and communication from individual members of the state. It has been perceived to be an extension of the powers of the state and various state bodies. That is not right. It seeks to apply one of the principles to which I have referred—that is, to ensure that there is proper monitoring, scrutiny and accountability of the way in which the powers of the state operate.
	The second point concerns entitlement cards and the consultation paper issued by the Government. The consultation ended on 30th January and, in the light of that consultation, we are now considering what to do. We have made clear that the entitlement card proposal is not designed to be a step in the fight against terrorism. Its main aims are to make it easier for the citizen to access services provided by the state; to make it easier to fight identity fraud; and to make it easier to identify who can and cannot legitimately be in this country. Identity fraud takes a number of forms but, as has been pointed out, the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Centre on 11th September at no stage sought to hide their identity. The entitlement card deals with different issues.
	The final point refers to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, in relation to what the Government have done about making representations in regard to the Guantanamo Bay suspects. The answer is that we have pressed the American Government to make a decision as quickly as possible about what will be the next stage.
	The debate has raised many questions, a number of which we have failed to answer. It has provided a basis of principle on which the striking of this difficult balance can be achieved.

Lord Chalfont: My Lords, the debate is due to end at 6.25 p.m. and so I have time only to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, for choosing this debate in which to make his perceptive and thoughtful maiden speech and to thank all noble Lords who have taken part. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Children and Parents

Lord Northbourne: rose to call attention to the role of parents in providing for the needs of the nation's children in the 21st century and to the case for making available more encouragement and support for parents; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, I should like to welcome our two maiden speakers, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton. The debate will be distinguished by the presence of a former Archbishop and an Archbishop. We welcome the new Archbishop as he makes his maiden speech and we welcome back the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, who, as noble Lords will recall, has himself led an extremely distinguished debate in this House.
	Fifty years ago, the role of parents in our society was clearly understood. Since then, enormous changes have taken place and, in effect, the rulebook has been torn up. Many of today's parents have never experienced a functional family or even a family where anyone has work. Fewer and fewer people are choosing to become parents. Noble Lords will, I think, agree that our children still have a right to the love, security, care and education they need if they are to develop to their full potential. We are not meeting those requirements.
	A significant minority of our young people are growing up anti-social, excluded and without hope. Some 9 per cent of children leave school functionally illiterate. We are sending these young people out into the world disabled. The cost to the taxpayer is huge, both directly and in later lost productivity; the human cost is probably even greater.
	Today it is fashionable to blame the schools. However, I am going to be bold enough to suggest that it is the quality of early parenting which lies at the root of the problem. Furthermore, as they held their first baby in their arms, 99 per cent of those parents who fail wanted desperately to succeed. They have been defeated by the mountain of multiple disadvantage against which they have to struggle. It is those parents and that disadvantage which are the concerns of our debate today.
	In her Reith Lecture last year my noble friend Lady O'Neill pointed out:
	"Every time we create a right for some person or group, we inevitably create a duty for some other person or group".
	Who, then, has the duty to deliver the rights of the nation's children today? The Children Act 1989 established the concept of a partnership between parents and the state. I shall return to that concept of partnership later.
	First, however, I want to show that, in spite of the welfare state, parents still play a pivotal role in raising the nation's children. By "parent" in this context, I refer to any adult who has made a long-term commitment to love and care for a child. Obviously, birth parents are by far the most likely people to volunteer for the job.
	A recent report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health states:
	"The way parents look after their babies and toddlers makes an important difference to their mental health and social and emotional development. The impact of parenting and its potential for improving mental, social and emotional health is discernible both in the child and later in adulthood. Parents are crucially important because the foundations of learning and of successful relationships are laid in the first five years. That is also the time when parents are at the very centre of the life of the child".
	My noble friend Lady Greenfield will speak later about the development of the child's brain. As she is a world expert on the subject, I shall say no more.
	Professor Nicholas Elmer wrote in a recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report:
	"The most important influence on a person's level of self-esteem is their parents. After parents have had their say, little else in life will be able to modify the 'opinion of self' formed by parents".
	Much other recent research shows the strong links between the quality of parenting and outcomes for children, both in school and in later life. I believe therefore that the evidence is compelling. In spite of the welfare state, parents still play a key role, especially during the first five years of a child's life.
	Most parents today, most of the time and with the help of the welfare state, are giving their children the care and education they need for a good start in life. Of those who are not succeeding, most desperately want to do so. Why does success elude them? Research suggests that often more than one factor is involved. A cluster of linked factors causes the problem. These may include ill health, mental illness, depression, learning disabilities, poor housing, lone parenting, loneliness, poverty, violence, alcohol or drugs and ignorance. Today many parents do not know what their child needs, still less how to deliver it. Many have never experienced a happy, supportive family, or even a kind word, or boundaries to acceptable behaviour. They are struggling against a mountain of severe and multiple disadvantage. They need help. How can we help them?
	The Government have given these problems very serious thought. Much has been done and they are to be congratulated on that. This morning my noble friend Lady Howe and I visited a Home-Start programme based in Southwark. What is being done in that project is impressive. Parents are empowered by being brought together in a holistic way with the various services they need so that, through the parents, objectives for the children can be achieved. How different, alas, from most local authorities. Often the various departments do not even speak to one another. Furthermore, they try to substitute for parents rather than work through parents. I shall not say more in flattery about the Government's achievements because the Minister has 20 minutes in which to speak, while I have only 15. I shall not sing his song for him.
	Much more still needs to be done. I realise that there is only so much that governments can do. Parents do not want to be told how to bring up their children and people do not want a nanny state. That is why I want to spend my remaining few minutes looking at four areas where I believe it is politically feasible for both government and the rest of society to do more to help parents.
	First, however, we must define more clearly the role of parents. In her book, Who's Fit to be a Parent?, M J Campion wrote:
	"I would argue that the degree of mismatch between expectations of child, parent and state are at the heart of most parenting problems today. Parents are being asked to do a job without any job description".
	Parents cannot be expected to get it right if society is not clear about what it expects of them.
	A recent report from the National Family and Parenting Institute considers the case for a "parents code" or for guidelines for parents. I am inclined to think that a road map for parents might be a better proposal. A map can show a variety of routes; it can also indicate those which are likely to be the easiest and those which are likely to end in trouble. Ultimately, however, it leaves the choice to the parent.
	Parents' responsibilities should be set in the context of the responsibilities of others. We need to shift from emphasising "feckless parents" to a consideration of the responsibility of society as a whole for the future care of our young people. In designing a code or road map for parents, society and parents themselves, as well as government, should be seen to set the agenda. There is a need for open consultation and debate. That debate would probably need to be inaugurated by government, but then they would have to be prepared to listen.
	My second points relates to more education and preparation for parenthood. There is no one best way to be a parent. But that does not mean that there is nothing to learn.
	A recent report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health stated that,
	"parenting is a difficult task. The way we were cared for by our own parents influences how we look after our children".
	It goes on:
	"There is now a growing body of research which shows that our familiar assumptions about bringing up children are not always correct. Some parenting practices (which are passed on from generation to generation) are harmful, and play an important part in the development of emotional and behavioural problems, conduct disorder, delinquency, violence and mental health problems in adult life".
	Yet a recent survey by Mothercare indicated that 70 per cent of mothers today rely either on instinct or on what they learnt from their mothers to guide their parenting.
	Parents and prospective parents need reliable, research-based information and opportunities to learn about what has worked for others so that they can make informed choices. Education for parenthood in schools has been shown to work, and is popular. The emphasis at that age is on relationships, on accurate information about what a young child needs, and on discussion about the teenager's own aspirations. This subject should be compulsory in all schools—which today it is not; the syllabus should be part of government policy—which it is not; and it should be taught by well-trained staff—which it is not.
	Parenting education for young parents, including fathers, during the mother's pregnancy and after has also been shown to work well. Even parenting orders have worked—which all the professionals predicted would not be the case. The Parenting Education & Support Forum tells me that many parents have asked: "Why didn't I get help before? Why did I have to wait till my boy had committed a crime?".
	My third point is that we need a more holistic approach to help parents. The point was made clearly in a wonderful debate introduced by my noble friend Lady Howe a few weeks ago.
	Even when support is available, too many parents and children are falling through the net because services are over-stretched and, more importantly, are not working together. It is interesting to note the comparison with the Sure Start programme, where the empowerment of parents and a holistic approach to the contribution of the various services are central to the project. How I wish that that could be extended to all areas in all parts of the country, and to all children and all parents.
	Health visitors, having gained the confidence of parents, have an important role to play in introducing them to the services that they need. Again, that is working with the Sure Start programme.
	Finally, I believe that we should value and respect parents more. This is a crucial message. Parents are a fantastic resource for the nation. Let us stop taking them for granted. If parents feel valued, they will value themselves more; they will be more likely to prepare themselves for the job, and do it well and with enthusiasm. There is an enthusiasm these days for positive parenting, and we are told by the experts—rightly, in my view—that children respond better to praise than to blame. Why do we not try that with parents too? We should value particularly fathers and mothers who make a long-term commitment to do the job of parenting, because long-term commitment is important to children.
	We need a more family-friendly society. I dream of a society in which, when you walk into a restaurant with children, people look up and smile, as they do in Spain and Italy.
	We must listen to parents. Today, parents in our society do not have a voice. Perhaps we could consider developing an organisation for parents which would give them a voice—a kind of trade union for parents.
	The time has come to recognise that parents save the state a vast amount of money and do a job which no one else can do as well as good parents can. They are doing the most important job in the world. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we are very lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, among us to remind us of the importance of children, and of their parents, in the scheme of things. I thank the noble Lord for introducing this debate, and for doing so with his customary blend of knowledge and humanity. The subject has attracted a distinguished group of Peers, with a wide range of experience. We can all look forward to the debate ahead of us. It will be particularly pleasant to hear from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, in his new role as a life Peer, and from his successor, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom we welcome to the Bishops' Benches.
	We do not need to be experts to know that parents are the most important factor in the lives of children. That is true whatever the make-up of the family—traditional or otherwise.
	It is within the family that children first learn a sense of values—sharing and fairness; discipline; the boundaries of acceptable behaviour; how to enjoy themselves; what is safe and what is risky. It is where they first learn to relate to others—it is to be hoped with rational self-confidence, but, sadly, sometimes with fear, suspicion or aggression.
	My conviction is that most people, whatever their financial or family circumstances, try their best to give their children a good start in life. But some parents—often, but not exclusively, the poorest—have real problems with coping with their own lives, or with their children, their partners, their finances, their own mental health, or all of these. Or they may not have had the experience of "good" parenting from their own parents. Even so, one should not assume that these will be "bad" parents. People can show amazing resilience in the face of daunting problems. But they may need support or financial help or advice, or the opportunity to meet other parents in similar situations and to learn from each other.
	There is a considerable amount of discussion as to what help should be offered, in what form and by whom. But there is a wide acceptance that it should be available as early as possible. I suggest that a great deal could be done at maternity clinics, during a post-confinement stay in hospital and via mother and baby clinics to increase a young mother's confidence in her own ability to look after her child. Written material about local support and help services could also be made available in these places.
	I am sad to hear of the decline in the provision of mother and baby clinics since my time as a parent. A marvellous opportunity to learn which young mums were not coping and to offer discreet suggestions as to "what works" with small babies may have been lost.
	I think it is hard to exaggerate the loneliness of the young mother at home. I certainly experienced loneliness, but I suspect that things may be worse now. Young parents may not have their own parents near at hand; or granny may herself be working and not able to provide a second home and partial refuge for the next generation. She may not even want to do so, having only recently stopped looking after her own children.
	So it seems to me that a great deal of care should be taken by the authorities in tailoring offers of help and the way in which they are presented to parents, in such a way that they emphasise the things that parents themselves seem to value: a respect for their own opinions and for their wish to be good parents, the ability to meet other parents and to learn from them, and a concentration on practical help with dealing with young children.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that, in rolling out programmes designed to help parents and particularly poor parents, the Government will pay close attention to the work of researchers which could help in encouraging parents to seek and receive support. Not all adults in our communities are confident in approaching the authorities and asking them for help. Indeed, many people would rather do anything than approach, say, social services.
	Some may say that all would be well in the family if only mums stayed at home. Personally, I am glad that I was able to do so, although I did not always feel like that at the time. Nor did long periods at home, combined with residence abroad as a diplomatic wife, have a beneficial effect on my earnings or pension. But I doubt that being a full-time mum is an option for more than a very few people today. Indeed, I doubt that it ever was. Poor women have always worked, first in the fields, then in the factories, in other people's houses, as laundrywomen, cleaners, cooks and, later, as clerks, shop assistants and typists. It is the desertion of her children by the married middle-class mum which shocks some observers. But we cannot go back to the 1950s, much less the 1930s. We have to find ways of integrating the world of work and the world of child care as much as possible—more, even than the Government's new policies on flexible working, to be activated in a few weeks' time, will achieve.
	Those policies are a good base from which to go forward, and I look forward to seeing how they will operate in practice. I am particularly keen to see how they will affect the role of fathers as carers. The pressure on women who want to do well at work is a risk to successful parenting, but so is the terrible modern culture of exaggeratedly long working days for men who want to play their part as parents. In this context, I would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that working parents, particularly poorer workings parents, have access to the reliable nursery care in school holidays as well as in term time which can help them maintain their earnings.
	It is a cliche to say that a society's children are its future, but it is true. Recently there has been a lot of bad news about young people—their increased smoking, drug-taking and drinking, and the violence they cause in the streets. The Government appeared at first to respond to this in punitive mode. There are too many women and too many young people in prison today adding a financial cost to the social costs caused by bad behaviour. This is not the time to discuss penal policy. In any case, the Government seem to have changed tack, with a greater emphasis on punishment in the community and developments such as Community Punishment Plus.
	We should never forget that lack of care for parents and families can, in the worst cases, result in offending behaviour. Indeed, as I have said before in your Lordships' House, the breakdown of family life is the single greatest predictor of offending behaviour. It is also associated with low educational achievement and the risk that the cycle of poor parenting begins again. How much better to offer useful help to parents when they really need it—when they first become parents.

Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, what an important and absorbing subject the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has chosen to introduce today. I offer him my sincere thanks and warm congratulations.
	As a secondary school teacher for almost 40 years and, over the past 10 years, as chairman of governors of a large inner-city technology college, I have never doubted the importance of the early years in the moulding and development of a child's character and abilities. This is a truth known to the Spartans in ancient times and to the Jesuits later.
	The noble Lord eloquently described many of the problems facing parents who are struggling inadequately to look after their young children in the tough world of today. I am glad to tell him that help is at hand. This evening, I would like to tell your Lordships about Home-Start, an organisation which exists entirely to provide encouragement and support for parents who have at least one child under the age of five.
	Home-Start is now 30 years old, and is acknowledged to be the leading family support organisation in the country. It began as a simple scheme in Leicester, the brainchild of Margaret Harrison, and is now a national organisation, with more than 320 schemes all over England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That Home-Start is now a major source of family support nationally is largely due to the energies of its chief executive, Brian Waller, the former director of social services in Leicestershire.
	Each Home-Start scheme is locally run and managed by co-ordinators who recruit, prepare, train, supervise and support local volunteers, who are parents themselves. These volunteers offer simple, practical help and, most importantly, friendship and support. They live in the same neighbourhood as the families they visit and they are, as it were, matched to the vulnerable families who are in difficulties.
	The volunteer parent visits the family in their own home, becoming a trusted friend and very often helping a family to stick together through periods of crisis or depression—particularly post-natal depression. Imagine the comfort for a lonely young mother just to have a companionable neighbour popping in, perhaps saying, "You go and have a rest, I'll wash up and then take the children for a walk", introducing her to a local welfare service or playgroup, suggesting—always in a non-threatening way—a few tips on diet or, indeed, just listening, over a cup of tea.
	Our Governments, whatever their colour, have, I am glad to say, given great support to Home-Start over many years, demonstrating their commitment to families and young children. I think particularly at this time of the Ministry of Defence, which provides funding for the many Home-Start schemes that operate specifically for families in the Armed Forces.
	Four years ago, Margaret Harrison had another brainwave. She set up Home-Start International to respond to the ever-increasing number of requests from other countries for help in setting up similar schemes. She asked me to chair the trustees, having already done me the kindness of recruiting the director, Tanya Barron, who has a wealth of experience internationally, most recently advising UNICEF's child care forum.
	It has been most encouraging to see the UK model of family support so welcome all over the world. One of the attractions of Home-Start is the very low cost of the operation, which is therefore sustainable even in low-income countries. Moreover, its tried and tested information and training materials are available for Home-Starts throughout the world; they are currently translated into Hungarian, Greek, Russian and French.
	We are helping 18 countries to set up their own family support organisations. One of the most important lessons that we have learnt is that the needs for family support are very similar throughout the world and across the different parts of society in each country. Home-Start works as well in Australia as it does in Russia, or indeed South Africa or the Netherlands.
	Another important lesson learnt is how crucial it is to develop strong working partnerships between professionals and the voluntary sector. During my recent visit to Home-Starts in Australia, I was particularly struck by the fact that nurses looking after mothers suffering from post-natal depression were grateful to be able to refer them to Home-Start volunteers.
	The European Commission is currently funding a research project led by Home-Start International to evaluate the effectiveness of parent support programmes in Europe. The first research publication from the project will be available next Monday.
	Finally, to return to this country, Home-Start does a wonderful job, but it is still not available to every family that needs it. Imagine what it could do if it were available in every town and city. The Green Paper on children at risk, to be published in May, will give the Government the chance to make Home-Start a truly universal service throughout the UK. What a wonderful opportunity.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. As a fellow trustee of Home-Start International, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, has referred, I endorse everything she has said about the valuable role that Home-Start has played in its 30 years of existence in providing exactly the type of family support to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has drawn attention in this timely debate.
	I also endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, said about the work that Home-Start International is doing to spread the practices and principles of Home-Start to the growing number of countries that are starting up similar schemes around the world.
	I also take this opportunity to thank my former colleagues in the Diplomatic Service for the help, support and encouragement that several heads of mission have given to their local Home-Start schemes. I also thank the Department for International Development for the financial help that it has been able to give, for instance, to Home-Start in South Africa. I hope that the experience that officials have now been able to acquire from their contacts with Home-Start will have convinced any doubters of the vital contribution that such organisations can make towards the aims and objectives that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, set out.

The Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving us the opportunity of so timely a debate—a debate that recognises, as we needs must recognise at present, a major cultural shift. The time was when the family appeared as a safe and stable piece of territory, surrounded by the ups and downs of public life. Now it is often the family itself that appears fragile and in need of support from public attention and public investment.
	The word "parenting", which has been thrown around already in this afternoon's discussion, is in some ways admittedly a barbarism. As somebody recently said, it would be nice to know what the corresponding duties of "childing" involved. But we cannot do without that. However much it may suggest an unhappy replacement of relation by contract, there are questions here about skills and the management, nurture and development of those skills, which have become a matter of increasing urgency for all those reasons which your Lordships have already heard amply set out.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, rightly referred to the weight of multiple disadvantage that presses upon many families these days. I agree wholeheartedly with the identification of that problem and see its effects not least in the challenges that face many parents in the management of stress, anger and conflict. Much of the most important work that can be done in the field of parenting skills is in addressing these issues.
	At the same time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has reminded us, we face a culture of work that is in many ways inimical to the values we wish to develop. It is, I believe, a fact that fathers of young children work, statistically, the longest hours among our working population. Our attention has already been drawn to this. It is a reminder to us that, while it is perfectly right to think of work as one of the more reliable routes out of poverty, that can only be true in a constructive way and in the long run if our culture of work becomes more humane and less pressurised. I hope that that, too, will be part of our considerations in this area. We are not simply talking about the multiple disadvantage that weighs so heavily on economically less advantaged members of society; we are also looking at the burdens borne by those who are counted prosperous in the world's eyes.
	It is because of the increasing awareness of these pressures and conflicts that the level and quality of voluntary contribution to this situation has developed so dramatically in recent years. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright, have drawn our attention to one of the most distinguished essays in voluntary assistance here. I am particularly glad to hear the work of Margaret Harrison referred to, as not only her practical work, but also her research, have proved a benchmark for the understanding of these issues in recent years. It is an area where the life of faith communities and the Christian Churches has become much involved in recent years.
	The Mothers' Union has been running a parenting skills programme that, I believe, is currently educating 220 people in parenting skills, of whom nearly a quarter now have professional accreditation. Christian groups have been prominent in many other fields here. There are several names that might be called to mind: FLAME, the Family Life and Marriage Education network; Care for the Family; and the delightfully and aptly named Fathers Direct. I do not believe that it is quite true yet that you can have a mail order arrangement to provide a male parent, but this is a very important contribution to precisely those areas that previous speakers in your Lordships' House have mentioned in this afternoon's debate.
	Unprecedented levels of skill and attention have been devoted to this in the voluntary sector. This is where a note of, if not caution, at least concern might need to be sounded. It is always welcome when statutory encouragement and assistance are given to voluntary work in areas such as this. But, as many of your Lordships will realise better than I, the promise of statutory encouragement and assistance can sometimes be something of a Trojan horse. The armed warriors inside brandish their weapons of accreditation and accountability in ways that may be perfectly defensible and yet which create their own problems in discouraging volunteers. Some of the effects of this are already visible in some of those voluntary organisations that I have mentioned.
	We need some overview of the situation, able to balance the appropriate level of statutory involvement with a proper flexibility about the volunteer and his or her role. It is in relation to that question of an overview that I make the first of two concluding points that I wish to leave with your Lordships. This has to do with a question that has been ventilated more than once in recent decades. Legislation affecting families and children crosses a wide number of departmental boundaries in government. From time to time, the cry has been raised that it is perhaps time to see some co-ordinating structure that will have that overview of the needs of families and children, which is able to interpret departments to one another and interpret the common mind of government departments to the public at large and turn it into effective action. I hope that that challenge to a co-ordinating role within government will not go unheard.
	If I may refer to it in your Lordships' House, the experience in Wales of the development of the role of the Children's Commissioner has again reminded us how very important it can be to have some figure or figures who have that broader role and that broader vision and remit in their work.
	Many more things could be said on this subject. I look forward to hearing them from other speakers in the debate, not least the noble Lord, Lord Carey, my distinguished predecessor. But one concluding reflection, which is perhaps particularly timely, is in relation to the way in which faith communities are capable of collaboration in the delivery of parenting skills. Experience in urban south Wales suggested that collaboration between the Churches and the local Muslim communities could break down many barriers of understanding. I suggest to your Lordships that that area is well worthy of further development at a time when relations between faith communities so need reinforcement, cementing and solidifying.
	It is a sad fact, and this debate will remind us of it, as many others will, that it is not always shared aspirations that give us the deepest sense of our common humanity—shared problems do that too. The cross-boundary problems affecting faith communities, such as the difficulties of parenting and the management of adolescents, have sometimes proved a major spur to better and fuller co-operation between those faith communities that have a particular investment in the health and nurture of family life.

Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, it is a special delight and privilege to be able to congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on his maiden speech. I have for a long time given the greatest value to his teaching and writing and I am delighted that your Lordships have heard him today. He is never pre-packaged but always thought-provoking, bringing fresh thoughts and entering fully into the debate. Your Lordships' House will look forward to many other contributions.
	I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on introducing the debate. He set the right tone in speaking of encouragement and support. The blame culture has dominated many approaches to parenting for much too long. A community worker told me of a conversation that he had with a local head teacher about a mother whom they both knew. The head teacher said, "She just doesn't care", but the community worker told me that, as it happened, that mother had been in his office that morning saying, "I can't cope". Sometimes people who feel that they cannot cope try to retain their dignity by covering it up with a brassy and aggressive exterior.
	Lately I was reminded how fragile parents can feel, when we were given sole charge of our two grandsons, aged four and two, for the whole morning. Would we be able to cope? It reminded me of anxious days when our daughter was growing up.
	Parents who have had poor experiences in their own childhood may need intensive and sensitive support. The report to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred, from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, rightly warns against assuming that professionals will always know best without listening seriously to parents. Parents need to feel respected and valued.
	I had the privilege of being national chairperson of the Family Service Units for 10 years. Each year, I was given a president's visit to one or other unit in the most disadvantaged areas of different cities. A vivid and simple memory is of a unit where there was a playroom where members of staff were down on the floor playing alongside children. Some parents there said that their own parents had never played with them and that they had not known how to begin.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, spoke of his visit with the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to a Sure Start project in Southwark. That programme is under the leadership of the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. The most reverend Primate spoke of the need for investment; the Government are making a huge investment into that programme. They are halfway in and, in two years, £1.5 billion will have been put into Sure Start. That shows the priority that is being given to young children and their parents.
	Sure Start reckons to support families with core local programmes, especially in the most disadvantaged areas. Its focus is especially from pregnancy to four years old, right through until children are 14. It sets out to co-ordinate services that can too easily act in different parts of the forest. One Sure Start project in Liverpool, still in its first year, includes in its team a midwife, a health visitor, a nursery teacher with particular skills in family learning, an adviser in bilingual work, an educational psychologist and someone from adult learning. It is one of four in Liverpool that are up and running, and there should be 10 in the city in two years. I was told that there will be 100 nationally.
	Sure Start aims to support parents as parents and in their aspirations to employment. That means enabling access to quality and affordable childcare, allowing mothers to go out to work. Getting into employment is the best way out of poverty for many, and brings more rewards than simply financial ones. Self-confidence begins to flow, which makes a huge difference to parenting. A friend told me that when a mother gets a job and goes to work every morning, children get to school on time.
	What about fathers? On one large outer estate in Merseyside, I was told that fathers are redundant. To be resigned to that takes away a vital part of a child's upbringing. I hope that Sure Start will build the kind of bridges that bring fathers into the picture too. Men will often help if they are asked to do a job that their skills can offer to a centre, such as repairs or redecorating. On such first bridges of friendly contact, they may dare to acknowledge that they need support in parenting.
	In many of the neediest areas, parents have very low horizons. It is all too easy for some parents in the neediest estates to say, "It never did me any harm growing up on this estate, with its culture", and to go on to have low expectations for their children. Building bridges for mothers and fathers brings contact, conversations and ideas that may lift those horizons.
	I congratulate my noble friend Lady Ashton and the Government on the priority being given to Sure Start. I hope that its professionals will work at building the bridges with parents to which I have referred. They can be places where self-confidence begins to grow and the proper dignity of parents is guarded.

Lord Lucas: My Lords, I follow two extremely impressive episcopal speeches, and another one is to come. It is fascinating how the Bishops are spreading around the House. If the present incumbent of the see of Canterbury scores a home run, we shall find the diamond full and one on our benches. That would be a welcome event.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is right in saying that almost all parents want to be good parents. One sees that in the most extreme circumstances. Everyone in the House must recognise what an enormous benefit it is to children and to society at large that parents should be good parents.
	There are two principle problem—image and access. The image of parenting education is that it is frankly naff, especially for fathers. The idea of going along to a parenting class strikes horror into most fathers' hearts and does not much appeal to mothers either, in my experience. However, it is possible to tackle that problem.
	One sees several excellent examples in the voluntary sector, such as Pippin—the Parents in Partnership-Parent Infant Network—which works in prisons. People from that organisation say that few fathers attend conventional parent-craft classes and that those who do frequently feel out of place. That is certainly accurate, but Pippin is finding ways around that. Another organisation successfully getting round the problem is the Parenting Education and Support Forum, which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, mentioned and which has pointed out that groups must be rooted in small communities and that leaders must be respected for their integrity. That was echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, in her speech on Home-Start. I hope that she will add me to the mailing list for that organisation, as I have not had dealings with it to date.
	I see the same tendency in Safe Ground, the prisons charity with which I am involved, which has just launched its latest venture. "Family Man" is a teaching pack for family skills in the Prison Service. Prisoners are a good example of group of bad parents who have put themselves in an extremely difficult position. It is wonderful to see how proud they become of being involved in such a course, of wearing the t-shirt, telling their fellow prisoners what they are doing and getting involved with their families again. Once one turns the corner of image, one can do a very great deal.
	Access is the other problem for most of us. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, you almost have to be a criminal to get in touch with the available support services. Four months ago, I had the pleasure of becoming a father again. In the process of my wife's pregnancy and subsequently, no one pointed out a parenting class to me. I have learnt a lot today about their availability. However, it is not something that has been on offer to me in any way. It is generally not something that men talk about. I cannot recall having a conversation at a pub or anywhere else about the skills of parenting. So far as one can judge the matter from daytime television—which is something that you get used to when your wife is pregnant—women do not talk much about it either.
	So what can the Government do? First, they can avoid being prescriptive. There are lots of different ways of bringing up children well. I remember sitting at the house of my parents-in-law when their friends, who had two young children, came to visit. The children got hold of the butter and the jam and were spreading it all over the furniture and carpets while their parents were sitting back with smiles of approbation on their faces. Those two children grew up to be the most courteous and most thoughtful young people that I know of in that immediate family. The furniture did not fare so well, but the children, despite that type of bringing up, turned out extremely well. There are lots of different ways of doing it. When people grow up in different cultures and different religions and have learned from their parents in different ways, you cannot cram them into one mould.
	It is important that the Government should encourage lots of different voluntary sector organisations. There are lots of different ways of doing that, but the Government should get behind and encourage them. They should help publicise what is available. They should help spread good practice. As the most reverend Primate said, let us get some real evidence-based research on what works and how it works and spread that round the system. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, we should revisit the PHSE curriculum. A great deal can be done to involve children in the questions of parenthood. You just need to employ a little drama-based technique. Use a little role play. Get children involved and talking about it. After all, what we want to create for the future is children who will talk about these subjects, who will converse.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, we want to deal to some extent with current work practices. It is terribly difficult for a father. I hardly saw anything of my first two children. I was working for an organisation that believed in starting at 8 a.m. and ending at 7 p.m., after which one became involved in the office politics and socialisation. I saw my children at weekends and when they were asleep. Now I have the great privilege of being able to look after my child half time. What I am noticing now is that there is remarkably little support. There is not a crèche in this place, for example. I shall have to consult the Clerks on whether I am allowed to carry my child through the Division Lobby if one happens to occur when I am sitting downstairs in the family room.
	The Government can do a great deal in setting an example. I have often come across the excellent work that they do in making room in the structures of work for those with disabilities or long-term illnesses. But there is no sign of that when it comes to families. By setting an example in their myriad of employees, the Government could do a great deal to set the tone for the rest of society.
	Something can be done in television. I do not know how many noble Lords saw the series by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, in which he touched on some of the problems of raising children and on how parents can be shown to get round the problems that they allow to develop between themselves and their children. Just a little direction and counselling can make an enormous difference. So many of us know only how we were brought up and do not find our way to other things. "The Archers" has an agricultural story editor, but no clear evidence of anyone who understands family problems. Yet that programme has been taken as the worldwide pattern of how to educate people. A great deal can be done by encouraging that type of story line. It helps when the media deal with such matters in a knowledgeable way.
	Finally, there are always little things that can be done. Prison can be made a much better place for families. We can stop imprisoning so many women with children; there is almost always a better way of dealing with them. We should look particularly at the number of foreign women whom we send to long prison sentences for drug offences, separating them from their families. Why not—it would be much cheaper—send them home to prison in their home countries? They can keep in at least some contact there.

Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can draw his attention to a recent incident in the Australian Parliament, in Victoria, where a Member of Parliament was ejected from the Chamber for breast-feeding—not because breast-feeding was of itself illegal but because she had brought an unelected member into the Chamber.

Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Northbourne on securing this extremely important debate. I add my congratulations also to the most reverend Primate on an absolutely moving and inspiring maiden speech. It was truly a pleasure to listen to him.
	I agree with my noble friend about the critical role of parents in bringing up children. It is still largely their responsibility, but many need to learn the skills appropriate to today. Many are also confused by the very many conflicting messages that they get from all sorts of sources. They need confidence to set the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and to use the authority of parenthood. They need to be able to do that without always worrying that what they are doing is wrong. Their responsibilities must be shared with other partners, as the noble Lord said, including schools, the health service and community health workers—especially health visitors, when the children are very young—in order to achieve those goals.
	However, the responsibilities of parenthood are also extended to new types of partners today. Many underestimate the influence of mentors and role models. The difficulties can be exacerbated in the new types of families which are very familiar to all of us today. There is a very broad range of step-families, half-siblings and so on. I know of one example in Derby, in a deprived ethnic minority area. Parents from one of those communities decided to go on the school bus every day, where other people's children were running riot, breaking windows and causing great harm and damage with their antisocial behaviour. By reasserting their authority as parents in their community, they were able to reverse that behaviour. Most people need help in getting the confidence to do that. They receive such help through an initiative, which I am proud to chair, called the Experience Corps.
	Because of the huge increases in longevity that occurred at the end of the 20th century, which are continuing, families are increasingly multi-generational, and they will become even more so. Families are sometimes composed of four or even five generations. Many such families are called "beanpole" families, composed of single parents mothering and grand-parenting more single parents, usually women. People are also often "sandwiched" between the job of parenting children and the other job of looking after frail elderly relatives who are living for much longer.
	The huge geographical spread of our families means that the extended families of today are really not like those of a former era. That situation makes parenting extremely complicated. We have to ask ourselves how much responsibility people should have for former relatives and their children who often live far away but whose expectations add to the stress of caring and parenting roles.
	Parents have an important role in influencing their children's life course through health, diet and healthy living—a life course approach. If we do not act fast, rising longevity will reverse and today's children could be the first modern generation to live shorter lives than their parents. A recent BMJ report stated that a third of teenagers are overweight and 10 per cent are obese. I mention two examples in that regard. I refer to a well-known large prison where the prisoners' diet was changed and to a large inner-city school where no sweets or fizzy drinks are now available for sale to the children and where anti-social behaviour has been rapidly reversed. There is much less aggressive behaviour and bullying in both those situations.
	In The Times of 21st March an article by Camilla Cavendish stated that,
	"parents know the life story of Beckham and how to send a text message but not to give their children a basic start in life".
	Rather, they allow them to eat poorly, watch TV for hours on end, play on computers and so on. That is exaggerated, but there is more than a grain of truth in it. Such an approach makes life easier for parents who cannot face what they see as the tyranny of their children.
	We know also about the importance of sport and drama in bringing out strengths in our children such as the confidence they need to acquire and feelings of self-worth. Yet much of that is no longer available in schools. The Cadbury Youth Sport Trust programme to encourage more children to take part in sport is a good example of a carefully crafted corporate social responsibility initiative. PE needs to be focused on accessible fun games and on sport which does not put off those who have not been brought up in a tradition of sport and team games.
	We need to give support to parents and to make wider use of the excellent initiatives that have been mentioned such as Sure Start and Home-Start. Those are wonderful holistic approaches to the care of our young people where it is most needed in the areas of highest deprivation. The potential of citizenship courses in school must also be developed. That is an important initiative. Schools have an important role in enabling foster parents' networks to be set up, building on those established with the first child.
	In conclusion, we should congratulate most parents on bringing up their children well, considering the pressures and difficulties they can face. We need to give more help to those who need it most. The Government are prioritising. I too congratulate those programmes which focus on areas of high deprivation and families with special needs.
	Timely interventions are incredibly important—the earlier, the better. Preventive programmes are much better than those implemented at times of crisis, whether they involve the physical, social or psychological development of our children.

Lord Rix: My Lords, as a parent and grandparent and, at some distance, a child, I welcome the initiative of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. My particular experience of parenthood is coloured by having a disabled daughter and a disabled grandson. I want, if I may, to focus on that disability dimension.
	My noble friend Lord Northbourne asserts that 50 years ago the role of parents was clearly understood in our society. It was certainly clearly understood in the case of parents of learning disabled children with the heady expectation that both parents would be responsible for everything at all times.
	Our daughter, Shelley, was born with Down's Syndrome in 1951. The obstetrician met me. He began, "Have you ever heard of Mongolism", which I had, albeit vaguely. He continued, "Please tell your wife". That was hardly necessary for the paediatrician, having examined Shelley, visited my wife and said, "I am happy to tell you that your daughter is a mongol". I think he meant that he was happy that he had reached a diagnosis. The combined advice of both those doctors and others was to put Shelley away, to forget her and to start all over again. After the tactful breaking of that news, I phoned the Minister of Health for some help and advice and I received an equally short but tactful—I am sure your Lordships would agree—written response:
	"You telephoned me about the services available for mentally defective children. I am assuming the mongol child you referred to will not be capable of education within the education system, and will therefore have to be dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Acts".
	It was a further 20 years before the Education Act 1970 reversed that disgraceful decision.
	Fifty years after our first child was born with Down's Syndrome, our younger son Jonathan and his wife Caroline had a second child, Robbie. By quirk of fate, not heredity, our delightful red-haired grandson also has Down's Syndrome. Jonathan has written something of his experiences as a parent in a book called Learning from each other to be published in the autumn by David Fulton for the Open University. If I may, I shall quote briefly:
	"Comments from professionals, friends, family . . . show how much Robbie is marked out by his syndrome. It is what people see. It is where they begin their thought process . . . This is not just about comparison with siblings and peers, although there is plenty of that, but it involves targets and lists in every developmental area of his life, and therefore of our lives. In many ways, Robbie has been presented to us . . . as a syndrome. He is a tick list child. As soon as he was born, the tests began. Is it any wonder if as parents we focus on exemplars that rebut those symptoms? And is it any wonder if sooner or later we come to resent those boxes and the questions behind them?"
	Jonathan goes on to present the challenge for parents of disabled children and points out that you need all these tests and labels although they are for the most part so horribly negative, because they pinpoint possibilities for action and open access to benefits and services, or at least they do now; 'twas not always thus.
	At the same time, you want your child to be just a child, with all the unknown potential and unimagined possibilities that all children have. Moreover, while Robbie and others may well in time acquire a voice of their own, for many parents the stark reality is a lifetime of interpreting and speaking for their son's or daughter's best interests, particularly those with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities whose parents are virtually on 24-hour watch day in, day out, year in, year out until their extreme old age.
	I turn now from real people to firm recommendations. First, can we all try just a little harder to see people with learning disabilities and their parents as natural partners? The Valuing People White Paper was very good in giving equal value to the two groups. The partnership is acknowledged in the education field but listening to parents does not always come easily to some professionals. In education we sometimes seem to want to take the big stick to parents although we have banned that for their children. In particular, during the years of transition, as disabled child moves towards disabled adult, it is good that parents should be surprised by what the young person achieves that they had thought impossible. It is not good that professionals and planners should be surprised by the young person's difficulties and support needs because they could not be bothered to listen to what parents had to tell them in the first place. Please can we capture and record the unique perspective of the parents, especially when the child will never be able to tell their own story and plan their own future?
	My daughter inspired me to help make a contribution to the history of learning disability. Inspired by my grandson, my son Jonathan is doing the same thing. We shall watch with great interest to see what the Government say in the next few weeks about parents and families in their first annual report to Parliament on the implementation of the White Paper.
	Rights, independence, choice and inclusion—the four key principles of the White Paper—have been the dream of parents for their disabled children for as long as I have been a parent. Please God we will not have to wait another 50 years for that dream to become a reality.

Lord Chan: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Northbourne on securing the debate on the vital role of parents in meeting the needs of their children. I also warmly welcome the maiden address of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was thought-provoking, especially on how Christian organisations help parents. I look forward to his future contributions in the House. It is also a pleasure to congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Carey of Clifton, who will be making his maiden address as a life Peer. I look forward to his words of wisdom. I shall focus my attention on children of parents living in deprived communities.
	I come from Merseyside and in particular the Wirral peninsula where one in four people lives in electoral wards that are among the 20 most socially deprived in England. I referred to them when we debated the gracious Speech on 19th November last year. The five electoral wards of Bidston, Birkenhead, Leasowe, Seacombe and Tranmere have the highest proportion of children and the highest frequency of teenage mothers in Wirral. In those districts, the nuclear family frequently comprises a teenage mother with her low-skilled male partner and one or two babies and young children under five years of age. They are dependent on state benefits for housing and basic necessities. Very few of those families come from ethnic minority groups.
	That rather unpromising setting is where many of our children are raised by their young and inexperienced parents. If we do not support them, we will be guilty of neglect and continuing a cycle of deprivation and inequality. To their credit, the Government have given priority to the family by financial support, through improved child benefit and income-related benefits with the working families' tax credit and children's tax credit.
	Flexible working hours will be introduced from April this year to help mothers of children under six years or disabled children to work in order to increase the income of families. I have my doubts about the wisdom of that legislation. Young mothers in Wirral need time to learn how to care effectively for their babies and pre-school children. They should be given the choice to concentrate on being successful mothers in the 21st century.
	Above all, the Government should be congratulated on introducing the Sure Start initiative mentioned by my noble friend Lord Northbourne and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool. It has given support to low-income parents and low-skilled families by working with parents and their children through an integrated childcare service across traditional boundaries of government departments. Its purpose is to transform service delivery and to meet better the needs of children and their parents in vulnerable communities. The Government's longer-term aim is to establish a children's centre in every one of the 20 per cent most disadvantaged wards. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what progress has been made so far, how they will enhance the role of parents, and when we might see those centres established in north-west England.
	Like the noble and right reverend Lord, I acknowledge the good work done by Sure Start. In the Wirral, Sure Start projects target mothers and young children in pre-school groups in all five disadvantaged wards. Sure Start staff, who have a variety of professional skills, work with pregnant mothers and their partners, parents and children to help them with parenting skills, good quality childcare and health services. Those services are being extended to ethnic minority families to help them, among other achievements, to acquire English language skills early.
	Before Sure Start began, Home Start, which was described by the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, had been working with parents and young children in Birkenhead for nearly two decades. The advantage of Sure Start is its availability to many more families and the involvement of statutory services. I take note of what the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said about that involvement.
	There are derelict houses in our disadvantaged wards—some 900 in Wirral—but they are being renovated by the local council. Improved housing does not create a community that supports young families. That can come about only when local residents work with local government through their neighbourhood forum where they meet service providers to discuss their needs.
	Nutrition and the availability of cheap food is another essential requirement of parents with young children. In Wirral, better quality food and lower prices are available in Birkenhead market rather than in supermarkets. But parents on low incomes have no car and need a reliable public transport service to take them to market to buy food. Buses provide such a service, but they are neither frequent nor regular, even though Birkenhead has Europe's first best-designed bus terminus.
	Local health services need to be involved. Poor people have poor health and make more demands on those services than other residents. For young families, health intervention such as encouraging young mothers to breastfeed their babies will succeed only when every young mother has an experienced nurse, mother or midwife who has successfully breastfed her own babies to provide personal support. The public health unit of the Birkenhead and Wallasey NHS primary care trust, of which I am a non-executive director, has begun to work with local service providers and families to improve healthcare to young children and their parents living in our five most disadvantaged electoral wards, but our capacity is limited by financial and human resources.
	I look forward to the Minister's response to these issues affecting our young children and their parents living in poverty.

Lord Carey of Clifton: My Lords, a second maiden speech in your Lordships' House is, I suppose, an unusual occurrence, but it happens to be the fate of those who move from the Bench of Lords Spiritual to other sections of the House. However, it affords me the opportunity to express my gratitude not only for the support and friendship of noble Lords during my time as Archbishop of Canterbury, but for the welcome that I have received since re-entering the House as a life Peer. As Archbishop Rowan, the 104th incumbent in the See of Canterbury, will find, this is a very splendid place to be, not only for the friendliness of everyone who works here, but, as he will have already noted, for the quality of the debates and the effort made by everyone to make democracy work.
	Whatever we may have achieved before entering the House, we can all re-echo the words of the American farmer who entered his old nag in the prestigious Kentucky Derby. When asked if he thought that his old horse had any chance of winning, he said, "No, not the slightest, but just think of the company he'll be in". In this House, we are in very good company indeed.
	However, I think that we will all agree that the best company of all is the human family. The family is by far the most significant factor in developing the social capital that makes any nation great. We are all in the debt of my noble friend Lord Northbourne for introducing the debate and emphasising the importance of parenting. As he indicated, there is much to celebrate about the family, and our debate ought to recognise that fact. Some 80 per cent of dependent children still live in two-parent families in the United Kingdom, and by far the majority of parents seek to be good at the increasingly difficult task of bringing their children up well. That is the good news, and we can and should build on that fact.
	However, the word "family", as the most reverend Primate mentioned, is now becoming a portmanteau word for many different types of family associations: singe parents made so by death or divorce; solo parents by choice; and multiple families, in which children may meet several male parents and overlap with several step-siblings. It is when we pause to examine what has happened in our society since the mid-1980s that we might well conclude, as my predecessor has already hinted this evening, that we are witnessing a dramatic cultural revolution that will have profound consequences for future society.
	In this quiet yet unmistakable cultural change, two things are happening: we are seeing the undermining of marriage as a contract between two people for life, and we are witnessing fatherless families becoming commonplace. Let us take marriage first, and let me get out of the way my total commitment to the traditional family, comprising a mother and a father in a monogamous relationship with dependent children. As a Christian leader, that is my preferred choice. However, there are many reasons for presenting that view uncompromisingly and without coyness, because its superiority over other forms of relationship are very clear to see. All studies—the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, invited comments on statistics—now point in one direction: lone parents are poorer and are more likely to suffer from stress and other health and emotional problems. Their children have more trouble at school, perform less well academically and are at greater risk of suffering physical and emotional abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, spoke feelingly about the loneliness of the lone parent.
	Similar issues arise when we compare the traditional marriage with cohabitation. Marriage may be less popular these days, but cohabitees fare a lot worse than those who are married. The average cohabited relationship lasts less than two years and fewer than 10 per cent endure, compared with 60 per cent of those who enter marriage. It is sometimes said that it is children who make stable relationships. However, studies show that within five years of the birth of their child, 52 per cent of unmarried parents break up, compared with just 8 per cent of those who marry.
	Central to those statistics is the absent father in the family relationship. We must note and celebrate that this coming Sunday is Mothering Sunday, when we emphasise the centrality of the mother in the heart of the family. That is good to celebrate. However, we must also acknowledge the importance of the father in bringing up his children. Again, the statistics tell a sorry tale, although there is no point in dwelling on them at length. In brief, the absent father suffers from separation from his children but the children fare far worse because there is no male role model to share the responsibility of guiding them into adulthood. The puzzle, whenever one is confronted by any social or cultural change that threatens to undermine society, is: what can we do collectively about it? I offer two reflections.
	First, even though we should and must support different forms of family relationship, as a nation we should be more vigorous in affirming the importance of the traditional family and seek to restore the cultural importance of life-long monogamous marriage. We should be unafraid to emphasise its emotional, economic and health benefits and seek to share that knowledge with teenagers who are on the brink of forming relationships which may make or break them.
	Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is surely right to call for a closer partnership between the Government, parents, schools and voluntary organisations. The Government have already given a lead through such initiatives as Sure Start and the Lord Chancellor's Fund. We salute and applaud that. We should also celebrate the work of so many organisations that are doing such a wonderful sacrificial job. However, such organisations could do far more if more resources were at hand to help them. When I compare the social cost of broken families, which is said to be in the region of £15 billion, with the amount of money that is at the discretion of the Lord Chancellor, which I understand is £5 million, the latter seems derisory. If I may be allowed in this maiden speech to direct a question at the Minister, it is this: bearing in mind the social capital that healthy family life contributes to the nation and the economic costs of family break-up, is there any possibility that more funds could be made available to the voluntary societies that are at present hindered in their work by lack of resources? Does the Minister agree with the view of Mary MacCleod, chief executive of the National Family and Parenting Institute, that:
	"We need to offer specialist help to more families much earlier and recent studies issue a challenge to Government to increase the resources for family support"?
	Families are the basic, foundational units in any society. It is therefore in everyone's interests to help to create the most healthy environment in which they can flourish.

Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, it gives me very real pleasure to follow the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, and to be the first to congratulate him most warmly. My congratulations are twofold. First, I welcome him on his return—or his rebirth, one might say, in light of the topic being discussed—to this House and on his arrival on these Benches. We are indeed happy and proud to have him. Secondly, I am sure that the whole House appreciated the wisdom and humanity of his perceptive second maiden speech. On a personal note, I say that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, is someone to whom I owe a very special debt for having given me the rewarding opportunity to serve as chairman of the Archbishop's Commission on Cathedrals, and for his personal friendship and support thereafter. I am sure that all noble Lords look forward to hearing him on many occasions.
	I also thank my noble friend Lord Northbourne for securing this debate. He has been long at it. The subject is one close to his heart and I am delighted to have an opportunity to participate in this debate.
	The case for supporting, valuing and applauding families in their vitally important role as parents could not be stronger. None of us is necessarily born a good parent. We can, however, all benefit from and be grateful for expert help. I can certainly remember—like most young, and inevitably vulnerable, mothers—being absolutely delighted to see the health visitor. Being visited at home and being able to drop into a centre that was pretty well on your doorstep and which was full of colourful and stimulating experiences for young children and their parents—such as the impressive Sure Start pilot schemes which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I visited today and last week—must add value, enjoyment and confidence to parents and children alike, whatever their background.
	Facilities such as those would, as I said, be valuable for any families from averagely supportive backgrounds. Other noble Lords have already made that point. But they are much more valuable for parents and children, especially single parents from deprived backgrounds, whose own parenting role models may, in any case, have been poor or non-existent.
	That is why I, like the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard of Liverpool, find it especially encouraging that the Government are giving increased attention and extra financial resources—perhaps even more are needed—to less affluent areas around the country to enable local Sure Start partnerships to be set up.
	The challenge will be, as it tends to be with many other initiatives, to see that it is rolled out equally well in all local authority areas. The emphasis—what is so good about Sure Start—is on partnership. It is about joined-up government in practice, with local authority, health, education and social services joined by voluntary organisations, of which I am sure Home-Start is one, and crucially, parents and grandparents—all of them involved in planning, implementing and deciding the priorities of the scheme. It appears that involving dads will be a challenge that has yet to be achieved.
	Even more important than Sure Start from the perspective of my noble friend Lord Northbourne is that Home-Start operates from before birth right through to 14 years. As he has repeatedly stressed, help and support during pregnancy and the early months of a child's life can make a crucial difference to the child's later physical and mental health, development and behaviour. The need for support will not, of course, stop when a child reaches the age of 14. I am glad to see that the plan is to ensure continuing support by linking Sure Start to services for older children.
	Equally important for community cohesion is the scheme's potential for the prevention of anti-social behaviour. One USA study—the US was ahead with schemes such as this—concluded that crime and violence could be greatly reduced by assuring vulnerable families access to school-readiness childcare programmes. If we look at the total cost of crime in the UK, which amounted to £60 billion in 1999–2000, it is clear that, as the report Delivering for children and families states, even a modest percentage reduction would have a large impact.
	Many years ago, when campaigning for increased out-of-school recreational facilities, most schools were reluctant to play a greater role in providing community facilities out of school hours. Thankfully that is changing but, alas, not yet everywhere. With only 5 per cent of day nurseries so far based in schools and a falling birth rate—that is not the case everywhere, but nevertheless it is a falling birth rate—as the report states, there should indeed be both space and financial saving if more of the planned facilities for Sure Start projects could be housed in schools. An added advantage would be that parents and pre-school children would be more comfortable with, and feel less threatened by, familiar premises and staff when the time came for the children to start full-time schooling.
	In the current debate about how to ensure that more children from disadvantaged backgrounds qualify for higher education, the universities and the White Paper point to the continued failure of schools to produce better results from children from less affluent backgrounds. Only 19 per cent, compared with 43 per cent from the higher socio-economic groups, have attained the required standards on moving to secondary education. So, once again, more resources and top-quality teachers are essential in these same Sure Start areas if more children with academic potential are to get to university without the kind of reverse discrimination that so many people find distasteful.
	If we are not all born good parents, there is still far more that we can do throughout a child's life to emphasise how vital and how valuable to society as a whole his own parenting role will be when he, in turn, becomes a parent. Your Lordships need to be sure that enough emphasis is given to all aspects of parenting in the citizenship courses which are now part of the national curriculum.
	I close by returning to the one single area where greater support is needed: high-quality, affordable childcare. That is even more essential for single parents and those with little income. It is important for government to achieve their target of getting 70 per cent of single mothers back into work by 2010 and of halving the number of children living in poverty. But it is also important in giving parents that vital choice of whether to work or to study for a later return to the labour market or, indeed, to stay for the present a full-time parent.
	There has been progress, but, even now, 22 per cent of two-parent families and 29 per cent of single-parent families cannot find what they want when they want it. Childcare should be geared increasingly to fit individual needs. What I would call "wrap around" childcare should be available during pre and post-nursery school hours to enable parents to work part-time, do shift work—whatever the hours—work or study in today's more flexible marketplace.
	To match that, employers should have part-time work and flexible working hours far more tightly wired into the norm of their workplace practices. In other words, much more emphasis should be placed on employers providing family-friendly employment patterns for both women and men. Those patterns should not only form part of their social responsibility programmes—important as those are—but should be built into their own competitive, economic "bottom-line" thinking.
	As for the rest of us, we need to show how, as a community and as individuals, we value and applaud the job that today's parents are doing in raising tomorrow's citizens. On a purely selfish note, your Lordships will be relying on them to ensure a relatively tranquil old age.

The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Howe of Idlicote. I could not agree more with so much of what she said. No doubt she is aware of the recent research published in the US which followed up the longitudinal study taken from 1951 in which two groups of children—one a control group—received high-quality childcare early in their lives. They had greater access to higher education, were healthier and less likely to smoke. There was a very positive outcome.
	I am most grateful, too, to my noble friend for again calling our attention to the subject of parents. If I may say so, in his consistency he reminds me of a good parent who always keeps his child in mind.
	I shall concentrate my remarks on childcare. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report, Helpful Parenting, concludes:
	"A choice of affordable, high-quality, non-parental care with carers who can replicate the intimate and familiar care of confident parents, and who can engage with the parents and get on well with them is essential to support helpful parenting".
	My observations will be informed by my regular visits to the Anna Freud Centre—a centre of excellence in the training of child psychotherapists. As many noble Lords have noted, and paid tribute to, Her Majesty's Government have taken a strong interest in improving the quality of early years provision. They have formulated the first national childcare strategy since the period of the Second World War.
	Sure Start programmes have taken a welcome multidisciplinary approach in focusing provision in our most deprived areas on the first years of a child's life and even before birth. The Government have recently introduced new guidance—Birth to three matters—A framework to support children in their earliest years. They have given clear responsibility for early years provision to the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, and, importantly, have thus moved the early years portfolio to education.
	As many noble Lords have said, Her Majesty's Government are now developing the use of children's centres—institutions which provide a range of professional services for children and parents. I welcome the important steps that the Government have taken, and I hope that their achievements may be adopted and sustained by future governments of whatever political persuasion.
	The Daycare Trust recently arranged for the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and myself to visit the Stepping Stones Nursery, run by Westminster Children's Society—a short walk from your Lordships' House. We learnt that at that nursery the same staff team has been in place for the past four years. That stability was attributed to the good training and general professional development provided to staff at the nursery.
	Within the staff team there is both a member qualified to assess and a member qualified to train others for the National Vocational Qualification level 3 in childcare. Stepping Stones Nursery can therefore ensure that the training is of a consistently high quality. Furthermore, there is a highly experienced operations manager at the head office who provides effective supervision to the nurse manager.
	I am advised that a secure attachment by an infant to a particular adult is crucial to a child's successful development. John Bowlby is the psychoanalyst who coined the term "secure attachment" in the 1960s. His understanding is now much employed in the care of children. A child with a secure attachment knows that there is one principal adult available to him, an adult who keeps him in mind and is able to meet the child's emotional and physical needs.
	It was highly disconcerting therefore to learn from the nurse manager that there is a high turnover of workers in early years care. I believe the turnover is 25 per cent each year. The nursery manager described her dismay when she interviewed nurse officers from other organisations and found them unable to answer basic questions on health and safety matters.
	My understanding is that the early years workforce is suffering from years of disrespect, of lack of attention to training and development and of low pay. Staff are now being drawn off into local Sure Start programmes and into work as teaching assistants in schools. Rising house prices in many areas is making the work, even for those with a vocation, unviable. As a consequence, such workers may lack the capacity to ensure that children in their care experience a secure attachment. That is my concern.
	A child who has not experienced such an attachment may become less able to concentrate when he enters primary school and may be less able to manage his feelings; for instance, feelings of anger or sadness. It may be that much of the behaviour that the Youth Justice Board, our schools and our health service seeks to manage in adolescence, and increasingly earlier, is due to the failure to form secure attachments in early childhood. Without the experience of such an attachment in early childhood children may be less likely to grow into adults who can act as good enough parents for their own children.
	I have two questions for the Minister. What are Her Majesty's Government doing to ensure that children placed in childcare provision, particularly from birth to three years old, experience secure attachment? Are the Government ensuring that the principle of assigned workers—workers assigned to a particular child—and the principle of considering the need to understand the behaviour of a child, rather than merely cleaning and minding the child, permeate early years provision?
	It is vital that we provide parents with childcare in which they can have confidence, especially from birth to three years old. I welcome Her Majesty's Government's achievement, but there is still much more work to be done to provide access to consistently good quality childcare in the early years.

Lord Warner: My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating the debate. It has provided the opportunity to hear two distinguished maiden speeches. I was reassured to hear words like "resources" and "investment" appearing in those speeches because they are subjects extremely dear to my heart. I shall say more about them later.
	I declare an interest as chairman of the Youth Justice Board—my day job. In that capacity I know only too well that it is the family circumstances of young people that are one of the three main predictors of offending behaviour. Parents and parenting skills are critical to success in preventing offending and antisocial behaviour by children.
	I helped the Government to write their 1998 Green Paper on Supporting Families. From that time I well remember the memorable remark of Dr Mia Kellmer Pringle:
	"Modern parenthood is too demanding and complex a task to be performed well merely because we have all once been children".
	How much more complex and demanding has become the role of today's parents since that remark made in the 1970s. We have the reconstitution of families with new adult relationships for our children to handle; dual-earning parents trying to balance work and home; huge rises in one-parent families and child poverty; and greater social mobility with more families separated intergenerationally. Within that complex web of social change too often we forget the additional relentless pressures of commercialism, advertising and television on today's parents and children. Even the most confident and skilled parents struggle to establish socially constructive values in their children where the "must have" individualism of the other pressures is so strong.
	To illustrate that, perhaps I can quote from some recent research that the Youth Justice Board commissioned on interviews with young street robbers. Some said quite openly that they stole items like mobile phones, often from other children, because they were "must have" items that defined them in their capacity to participate in today's society. Helping those children to see the world differently presents a real challenge to many parents today.
	Yet we have been slow to see parenting and parenting skills as something in which we should invest. For too long we have seen the area as the preserve of the individual and of groups and unsuitable for intervention by the state and public agencies other than at the time of birth and, to a more limited extent, in the early years. The Government deserve great credit for being bolder than many of their predecessors in funding tax credit schemes for low-income families, on the establishment of the National Family and Parenting Institute, the Sure Start scheme, which others have mentioned, and the expansion of parenting programmes and support through organisations like Parentline and the work of the Youth Justice Board.
	There is still a long way to go and far too little of the work relates to helping parents in the difficult teenage years. The latest quarterly analysis of calls to Parentline. shows that the top two reasons, by some distance, for calling Parentline were the challenging behaviour of a child and the emotional state of a child. In nearly 80 per cent of cases it was the oldest child in the family causing concern and mainly in the early teenage years. Belatedly, we are finding that providing support can produce beneficial outcomes. Since 1999 the Youth Justice Board has been funding parenting programmes provided through youth offending teams. One may ask why. We were implementing some of these programmes because no one else was. In an evaluation of 3,000 parents who participated in the programmes in 1999–2000, over 90 per cent said they would recommend the programmes to others, even though many were actually on them as a result of a court making a parenting order. They reported improved communications with their children, improved supervision, a reduction in family conflict and better relationships with all the children in their family.
	In the year, following a short eight to 10-week group programme, there was a 50 per cent reduction in the number of offences by children causing the parent to be on the programme in the following year. So, for very low investment, there was a huge benefit in those family dynamics and to society as a whole.
	Those are the results from late intervention. How much better it would be to make these programmes more widely and easily available without having to threaten people with parenting orders. We will still need parenting orders—or the threat of them—for some, but these low-cost, mainly group programmes are some of the best investments the Government can make.
	I would encourage the programme to invest more in this area of parenting support programmes. The forthcoming Green Paper on children at risk provides the Government with the opportunity to set out a bolder strategy on support for parents from the first 12 months of life onwards. We know that early child/parent bonding is critical. We need more home visitation in the early days, easier access for parents to help and support at times of crisis during the school years, and particular help during the teenage years.
	We badly need a more coherent strategy for investing in parenting help and support if we want to reduce the number of children at risk and curb the growth of antisocial and offending behaviour in the teenage years. Of course parenting orders may be required for some, but the great majority of people want to do a better job in bringing up their children and many need more easily accessible help and support programmes on a voluntary basis.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for this timely debate. Families are the key to our communities and our society, and parents are the linchpin that holds families together. They are the first educators and carers of their children and as such they have a right to expect support and encouragement from the state. The future of our society depends upon the success of parents in bringing up children and it is the foundation upon which good citizens and secure societies are built.
	Yet, we increasingly see parents under stress. I refer to the competing demands of work and home, the changing nature of families and family structures, and parents who find themselves struggling to keep up with the world in which their children are living and growing. The changes and opportunities that come with technological advances bring challenges to the normal values with which those parents themselves grew up. In that respect, Northern Ireland is no different. We can easily see evidence of the changing context and shape of families.
	At 28 per cent of the total population, children and young people under 18 form a higher percentage of the population in Northern Ireland compared to other areas in Britain. We also have a higher percentage of households with young children under the age of five—17 per cent of all households compared to 13 per cent here in Britain; and an overall higher percentage of households with dependent children—30 per cent compared to 25 per cent. So the issues of parenting and parental support are particularly important for us.
	Northern Ireland has, however, not been immune from other social changes that have impacted on parents. We have—at 23 per cent—a higher percentage of lone parents than Britain as a whole, which has 21 per cent, and an increasing number of women working both full and part time. Stresses such as poverty continue to have a huge impact on families in Northern Ireland, with 40 per cent of all children under 16 in Northern Ireland living in poverty.
	A group of projects which work with parents and children in Northern Ireland has recently undertaken a consultation with parents on the issues that are important to them. They identified a number of key areas that cause concern. The majority of parents were concerned at the increased access to, and awareness of, drugs and alcohol among children and young people. They felt they needed more support and information to deal generally with this issue and more specialist help if their child became involved in taking drugs.
	Sectarianism and conflict in Northern Ireland was of particular concern to parents. Many of the communities most affected by the conflict have been excluded from the benefits of the ongoing peace process and many of these communities feel marginalised and isolated. An example of that—I know that your Lordships' House took a particular interest—was the Holy Cross issue, when we were trying to get some settlement to the issue from both sides of the conflict. Two issues that emerged from our consultation with groups were support for parenting and early years provision. Is that not odd in a conflict where every night there was rioting?
	These communities also continue to suffer from inter-community violence. Parents often felt they were unable to protect their children or keep them safe in the way that they might wish. The trauma associated with the ongoing levels of violence also affected parents' and children's experience and hopes for the future.
	Even for those parents not bringing up children in interface areas, the issue of sectarianism and its impact was of concern. Many parents felt that little help or support was available for them to address the issue. When Barnado's and Save the Children recently published a booklet about talking to children about prejudice and discrimination, the demand from parents for the booklet was overwhelming.
	Parents identified technological advances as a cause of concern. They were aware of the dangers of the Internet, but felt ill-equipped to know how best to protect their children. Lack of access to computers and technology also caused a divide between families with the resources to make best use of them and those unable to afford them or without the necessary skills to use them.
	Access to education and ensuring that their children had the best educational opportunities were of vital concern to parents. Parents sometimes feel that it is difficult to engage with their children's education or that they lack the appropriate knowledge and information to guide them.
	Many parents who contributed to the consultation were parents of a disabled child or young person. One consistent theme was the sense that life with a disabled child was a constant struggle due to lack of support. The experience of many families was of a continual fight just to get access to basic service provision or information for their child. In fact, parents identified that struggle for services, rather than the demands involved in caring for their child, as the main issue.
	Parents also felt that discrimination on the basis of their child's disability was rife in society—in education, the health service, local youth and community provision, future opportunities for education and employment, and generally, through society's low expectations of the potential of young disabled people.
	Parents are probably under more stress than at any time in our history and need much support and encouragement; yet they remain of the same key importance to children as ever. Many parents felt that they received little or no preparation or training for one of the most important roles that they will ever undertake. The vast majority of parents said that they would be more than interested in ongoing access to parental advice, information, support and training.
	Most first-time parents attend ante-natal classes, but they cover only pregnancy and birth. The opportunity could be taken to cover the first year of the child's life and what parents should expect in terms of the child's development at different ages and stages during the crucial first year. Researchers also tell us that those children most likely to be smacked are aged under one. That indicates a lack of information on child development and a misinterpretation by some parents of normal child behaviour as "naughty".
	Education and information can make a real difference to parental stress levels and children's experience of childhood. My experience of being involved in an early-years project for many years shows the extent of the difference that education and information can make to both parents and children.
	In Northern Ireland, we are eagerly awaiting the development of a children's strategy and we hope that this opportunity will be taken to highlight the need for a family support strategy and to ensure that the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety develops and resources such a strategy. When the Government introduced, consulted on and debated the Supporting Families policy, Northern Ireland did not. We have never taken an opportunity to focus on how parents and families might best be supported to undertake their role.
	The lack of a clear, well resourced strategy can be seen in local communities across Northern Ireland. Services are primarily delivered by voluntary and community organisations on shoe-string budgets, while statutory services remain under pressure and more firmly focused on sharp-end child protection.
	That situation is made worse not only by the lack of a coherent family support policy but by the continual under-spending on family and child care. Northern Ireland spends 30 per cent less per capita on family and childcare services than England. That is despite the fact that we have a significantly higher percentage of children in need. I urge the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety at home to consult on, develop and resource a coherent family support strategy as the first step to enable parents in Northern Ireland to undertake their parenting role as effectively as possible.
	While pointing up the lack of a strategy, there have however, been some welcome individual developments. The introduction of Sure Start has provided some much needed support in local communities. However, much still needs to be done. I have been interested to hear Peers speak about Sure Start 0–14. In Northern Ireland, we are still at the 0–three stage.
	We welcome the initiatives that have been undertaken by the Northern Ireland Executive to support children and families, including the Children's Fund and the creation of our Children's Commissioner. However, some schemes are notably missing from Northern Ireland, including Sure Start Plus and Connexions, which would be very welcome.
	I know that my time is up, so I shall go to the end of my speech. For parents who are wholly dependent on social security, the replacement of Social Fund loans with grants would make a singularly substantial difference to the quality of life for both parents and children. I know from my experience of families the difficulties of managing on benefits. Social Fund loans create an additional burden on an already inadequate weekly income. I urge the Government to reconsider their position on this issue and to act to ensure that we do not reduce further the already basic income on which many families and children exist.
	Overall, it is crucial that we recognise that to secure the future of our society, we put children first. A crucial element in doing that is to put parents first and to provide the kind of support and resources that will make a real difference in the lives of parents and children.

Baroness Strange: My Lords, how grateful we all are to my noble friend Lord Northbourne for introducing the subject of families at this particular time. And what an interesting debate it has been. The only problem is that with each speech my own speech has become shorter and shorter, as I cross out something already said by someone else. Also, the Chamber has become emptier and emptier.
	It must surely be a record to have two maiden speeches by what I can only describe as an absolute blessing of Archbishops. I should particularly like to congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Carey on his second maiden speech in this House, and I agreed with everything that he said.
	After God, of course, families—I use the word traditionally—are the basis of all that really matters in this world. At a time of war when there are so many orphans, we find ourselves thinking of them, and of the parents that they have lost, with so much love and sorrow in our hearts. And of course we think of our own families and of our own parents. Many of us in this House are already orphans. My daughter says that one cannot count as an orphan over the age of 16. All the same, I do so count myself, and so particularly enjoy the friendship of those who knew either of my parents. This has been a bad time of year for orphans—my daughter-in-law lost her bright and beautiful mother. My nephews and niece lost their active and jolly father, and my noble friend the Chief Whip lost his own father. We all cherish and love our parents, and we all feel lost and abandoned without them, however old we are.
	Being a parent is not a sinecure. It can mean a great deal of hard work—I do not just mean nappies. Years ago when my children were young, someone once asked me what was important in bringing up a child. "The important thing is to love them", I said. One of my children overheard this and said, "What Mum means is saying 'No', and going on and on about everything all the time". "Yes, it is", I agreed. "Doing all those things is a bore, and if I did not love you, I should not bother". A child is like a dog—for life and not just for Christmas.
	Incidentally, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should know that there is a families' room at the Peers' Entrance; that the refreshment staff in the Peers' Dining Room are very good at playing with small children, and have so with my grandchildren; that there is a plot afoot to provide two high chairs in the Peers' Dining Room; and that the Doorkeepers are absolutely brilliant at explaining things to slightly older children.
	Being a parent and, indeed, a grandparent, is an enormous pleasure. It comes very high on one's list of blessing to count. Last month, I was in an aeroplane which appeared to have difficulty in getting its wheels down and we were flying around for over two hours before making an emergency landing. I was sitting beside a doctor and we spent the time so happily talking of our children, and also my grandchildren, that we hardly noticed two hours had elapsed. We were counting our blessings. She did not have grandchildren yet, but she had delivered over 1,000 babies.
	At the moment, we are all praying for our brave servicemen and women. Our hearts are with them all the time and with the families that they have left behind. We pray for all the orphans and widows, British, American and Iraqi. And we hope that they will all find much love and comfort from their own families.

Baroness Greenfield: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the most reverend Primate and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, on their valuable and powerful contributions to the debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for giving the House the opportunity to debate this important issue.
	Many noble Lords have alluded to the importance of the environment on the developing brain. As a neuroscientist, I root and endorse that view in the bump and grind of brain cells. You are born with most of the brain cells you will ever have. It is the growth of the connections between the brain cells that accounts for the growth of the brain after birth. What is exciting is that the environment will influence the configuration of those connections. So even if you are clone—that is, an identical twin—you will have a unique pattern of brain cell connections.
	Genes play a part. I do not wish to denigrate genes; I merely wish to put them, despite all the hype, literally in their place. Genes make proteins, which are important biochemical baggage for brain cell circuits to work. But they are not a one-off; they are constantly being activated or switched off according to the caprices of the environment, whether it is the micro-milieu of the brain itself or the external environment in which you are moving.
	Hence your Lordships will appreciate that it is impossible to make the old and hackneyed division between nature a nurture. Rather we should think of a dialogue, an interaction, where there is no genetic controller orchestrating events but a ceaseless interaction between the environment and the molecular landscape of the brain. What is important is that the environment can determine how that landscape looks.
	Let me take, for example, what may seem to be a counter-example. The condition Huntingdon's Chorea—named after the Greek for "to dance"—is so-called because it is characterised by a wild involuntary flinging of the limbs in a grotesque form of dance. The reason for choosing this example is that it is one of the few brain disorders that can be attributed to a single rogue gene. However, we know that even in mice that have had their genes tweaked so that they have the single rogue gene—they have the mouse equivalent of this movement disorder—the onset and severity of the disease can be offset. It can be made much more moderate and come along much later in their lives if they have a so-called enriched environment. For a mouse this means a few little ladders and toys with which they interact.
	We know that adult rats exposed to ladders and toys and a so-called enriched environment will have more connections in their brains. The brain cells have more branches, which enable the brain cells to form more connections than their counterparts kept in simpler conditions. If this is the case for adult rodents playing with a few little ladders and wheels, how much more for the human brain?
	The most marvellous aspect of being born a human being is that you are freed-up more than any other animal from the tyranny of your genes; you are freed-up from having to obey instinct. That is why we, as a species, occupy more ecological niches than any other species on earth. It is because we are supremely able, compared to any other species, to learn that we are freed-up from the demands of instinct. And if you have individual experiences, guess what? You become an individual.
	We are born into the world, in the words of the 19th century psychologist William James, "as a booming, buzzing confusion". We evaluate it in terms of its primary sensory qualities—how sweet, how fast, how cold, how bright—but gradually these abstract sensations will coalesce into faces and objects. Gradually, as we get language, those faces and objects will acquire a name, a label. If they mean something to us they will feature in certain events in our lives that become memories. The more they feature, the more connections they will trigger and the more deep their significance to us will become.
	As this happens, we personalise our brains; we develop a mind. It is this learning, this ability to see one thing in terms of another, that I regard as understanding. Far from being some airy fairy alternative to the squalor of the physical brain, I see the mind as the personalisation of the brain.
	It is these personalised connections, sadly, which can be dismantled by conditions such as Alzheimer's Disease. As your Lordships may know, in such degenerative conditions the patient will gradually recapitulate childhood; gradually the world will mean less and less and gradually the patient will retreat back into the booming and buzzing confusion, where even people and objects that were very dear and close to the patient are no longer recognised.
	The point I am trying to make is that the competence of our brains, of our mental abilities, rests on the integrity and the extent and number of our brain connections. It is these connections which, in turn, are dependent on the experiences we have in the world.
	Noble Lords may have heard of a fascinating study recently undertaken with London taxi drivers. It is of course well known that London black cab drivers learn the "knowledge"; they have to remember all the streets of London in order to navigate about without using references. This is a huge burden on that particular ability, but it turns out that the brain scans of London taxi drivers, when compared with people of like age, show an enhanced area related to memory. That part of the brain is larger in taxi drivers than it is in other people. The fact is not lost on our London taxi drivers, most of whom have heard of the study. It is not the case that London taxi drivers are predisposed to having larger areas in this part of their brains. The longer someone works as a taxi driver, the more marked is the difference.
	You do not have to be a London taxi driver to display plasticity in this way. It has been shown that non-piano players exposed for only five days to learning five-finger piano exercises will show an enhanced territory in the areas of their brains related to the digits than will the so-called controls. More remarkable still is that those who were asked simply to imagine that they were playing the piano demonstrated a similar structural change. I gather the same applies to golf. Apparently if you imagine that you are going to play golf and think about the golf swings, then when finally you go on to the course, you will find that you are more competent than would otherwise be the case.
	Those examples shoot down the old dichotomy of mind and brain and show that the most airy of mental events actually does have a physical home among the connections. Not only can we see that this breaks down the barriers of nature and nurture, of mind and brain, and of the physical and mental, but every thought we have, however seemingly insubstantial and refined, has a physical base in the brain. It is therefore important to realise the huge power that the environment will have on our children, and in particular the parents who feature in that environment, because they will quite literally be leaving a mark on the brain.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on initiating what has been a really excellent debate. We have been privileged to hear a number of extraordinarily interesting speeches. Perhaps I may also congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on a thoughtful and thought-provoking maiden speech. I congratulate too the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, on his "second" maiden speech , which I also very much enjoyed.
	As the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, has just explained, the way in which we bring up our children is also the way in which we pass on our culture from one generation to another. How we as parents behave towards our children plays a vital part in the way in which they, in turn, will behave towards others. In society as a whole we have seen something of a crisis in regard to anti-social behaviour. Surveys of local populations often show that the issues which rise to the top are those affecting the neighbourhood. Worries are expressed about hooliganism, wanton vandalism, graffiti, petty crime and litter.
	I shall turn to the area in which I spend most of my working life—education. Ofsted reports show that one in 12 secondary schools is seriously disrupted by bad behaviour. Four out of five secondary school pupils say that their classes are disrupted, often just by one or two pupils in the class. The same problems are being seen increasingly in our primary schools. What are termed as EBD children—emotionally and behaviourally disturbed children—form the most rapidly increasing category with special educational needs. Such children often exhibit violence, bad behaviour and bad language not only towards their peers, but also towards their teachers. Every day, over 50,000 children stay away from school without permission. Truancy sweeps that are carried out from time to time indicate that many of those children are in fact out with their parents.
	The problems of hooliganism have often been discussed in this House. One of the four principal factors is the breakdown of family relations, a matter that we have dealt with in considerable detail. Between the ages of one and 16 years, four out of 10 children will experience family breakdown. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, mentioned the increasing incidence of what are called "beanpole families". Teenage mothers have children who themselves become teenage mothers. Over time, the family works out as an extended female line.
	Poverty affects one in four children in this country—although, as the noble Lords, Lord Warner and Lord Chan, among others said, the Government's initiatives have done a great deal and have helped to alleviate childhood poverty.
	Poor housing is linked to marriage break-up and poverty. There is, as everyone knows, a lack of good rented accommodation for those on low incomes.
	Poor physical and mental health in parents are, again, linked to poverty and family breakdown, but with knock-on effects: one in 10 children themselves suffer from mental health problems.
	As well as those four generally recognised features of the problems of family break-up, bad behaviour and so forth there is the problem mentioned by my noble friend Lady Thomas; namely, the problem of the work culture, and the fact that so many parents do not have time to spend with their children these days.
	It is something of a vicious circle. Children who are abused verbally and physically at home tend to reciprocate when they are frustrated—hence the five year-olds in primary schools who hit out and swear when they do not get their own way. But it is not just the parents who are to blame. As the work of Michael Rutter at the Institute of Education has shown over the years, there are many other influences on children: peer group influences; the school; and, increasingly, the pressures of commercialism and TV—a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. That underlines the importance of early intervention, of trying to break those habits before they become ingrained.
	It is important to remember that one of the features of the Head Start experiment in the United States—which in many senses was the prototype for Sure Start in this country—was early intervention. The experiment indicated the so-called "sleeper" effect; namely, the intervention when children were young sometimes did not show up until the later years, but there was changed behaviour in those teenage years. The young people who had been through Head Start had fewer brushes with the law; they had a later start in terms of sexual activity; and there were fewer teenage pregnancies.
	We have talked a great deal about Sure Start, and rightly so. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and the noble Lord, Lord Wright, mentioned Home-Start. I am not certain whether Home-Start developed out of a post-Plowden experiment in the late 1960s called the Red House experiment. Head Start in the United States was based on the Red House experiment, where for the first time there was a bringing together of the day care centre, people going out visiting parents and teaching them how to play with children, how to have a toy library, and teaching them to read books to children. All those elements were brought together, and proved to be extremely valuable.
	It is sad that the lessons from the Red House experiment, Head Start and Home-Start were so long in taking root in this country. It is extraordinary that it took until the mid-1990s, when the present Government came to power, for us to put down firm roots in terms of Sure Start. The Sure Start programme is now doing excellent work. But we must remember that it is not spread that widely. It is planned that it should work only in the 20 per cent most deprived wards in this country. Yet we are well aware of the fact that there is much deprivation in other areas; there are pockets of deprivation even in well-to-do middle-class areas such as Guildford. It is perhaps dangerous to concentrate the work too narrowly.
	I want to put in a word for teenagers. A great deal of work is now being done to help parents in the early years. As the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, intervening early is essential. Yes, the earlier we can teach parents how to look after children, the better. That is an excellent approach. But there are very real problems in the teenage years. Are we doing enough in those years? Peer group pressure is very strong at that stage. It is necessary to provide teenagers with counselling on behaviour management—how to resolve disputes without violence, learning to work with and listen to others. The Connexions programme and mentoring are growing in importance in providing the ear of a sympathetic adult. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked, what place is there in the curriculum for parenthood and parenting? We also need to look at exclusion programmes and make quite sure that those who are excluded from school continue their education in one form or another and that we minimise the number of exclusions.
	Are we doing enough to help teenage parents? The National Family and Parenting Institute has done a survey of what parents need. It came to the conclusion that many parents needed help but not, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, prescriptive help. They were wary of the professionals and needed more help from basic family support networks. They would take advice from the TV and women's magazines but were fed up with being given lots of glossy pamphlets.
	Too many local authorities have practically closed down youth activities, because they are non-statutory services, at a time when budgets have been extremely pressed. Looking after older people and children who need protection has used up all the budgets of these statutory services. We need to think much more seriously about youth services, the role of the school in extended school times, keeping schools open, after-school sports—much of that provision has now disappeared—after-school clubs and homework clubs. Furthermore, many such children do not have access to computers at home, so they should be able to go into school and use the computers there. All these options should be given greater prominence than at present.
	Is there really enough joined-up thinking across the various sectors? What role are the proposed children's centres likely to have in relation to the children's trusts proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming? What has happened to the DfES behaviour improvement projects? Do they continue? Are they being tracked? If so, how, and by what criteria are they being judged? Are we doing enough to support teenage parents? Is enough thought being given to integrate the efforts of the Connexions service and the youth service with other services within the community?

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, for initiating this important debate. His experience and commitment to family matters is well known to all, and on this occasion he has not disappointed us.
	It is a measure of the profound pastoral issues which bear on the subject of this debate that two successive occupants of the seat of St. Augustine have chosen each to make their maiden speech, or near-maiden speech, on it. It is customary in this House to pay exaggerated compliments to the speaker and to express the hope that the noble Lord will be heard on many occasions. I am sure that this sentiment is echoed tonight with acclamation. I am sure that neither they nor your Lordships will require me to declare an interest as chairman of the Friends of Lambeth Palace Library.
	Some two years ago I took part in a debate—then, as now, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—to draw attention to the problems experienced by boys growing up without the care of a father. The theme running through that debate was the handicap suffered by so many boys who had grown up without the father role model.
	Today's debate is in many ways complementary, but on a wider canvas. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, on departing from the possibly conventional view that it is all the fault of the education system or, if the children have been in trouble, the police. He rightly emphasised the responsibility of the parents in having an influence over the development of the child. But if I may say so, he is to be congratulated on his constructive approach in emphasising that help must be given to parents who are themselves often so terribly vulnerable. As he rightly says, many parent-child problems can be put down to two factors. The first is the environment in which the child is reared. The noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, gave us a scientific line on that. The second is simply ignorance, which, sadly, can often come from lack of education. The basic skills agency produced the awesome statistic that in some parts of England nearly four adults in 10 cannot read or write properly or do simple sums.
	There is a third factor, which is the vicious circle of parents who, in their turn, have suffered from an absence of role models of one or both of their own parents in their own childhood and who simply have no experience of a wholesome parent-child relationship. If unaddressed, that will perpetuate itself from generation to generation.
	To take the subject of the debate at its most literal, we are here to see the parent from the child's point of view. The child will have no control over whether his or her parents are married, single, separated or divorced, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, reminded us. We must address how the community—be it the state, the Churches or the voluntary organisations—can provide help, support and guidance to these parents. It is relevant and appropriate that we also look to some of the root causes of parental problems, as so many noble Lords have done this evening. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, have given us vivid examples of teenage pregnancies. In its very good pamphlet, Teenage Pregnancy, the Social Exclusion Unit highlighted the environment in which young boys grow up. Sexually active before the age of 16, nearly half the males interviewed cited peer pressure as a major factor. Many young men were reluctant to discuss or to use contraception. A survey in America found that contraception was viewed as a purely female concern, while 40 per cent of the women relied on men to use contraceptives. That is a no-win situation.
	That links back to the main theme of the debate. A key finding was that 12 months after the baby's birth, only half the teenage mothers were in a relationship with the father. The rest were usually single and without a steady partner. The important point is that research showed that young fathers often wanted to stay in touch with their children and play a proper part in their upbringing. That is the challenge facing us. Many speakers in the debate who are expert in the field are only too well aware of that.
	The Government are to be commended on initiatives taken in the past two years on better personal, social and health education in schools, on the Sure Start Plus pilot projects that support teenage parents, on new resources for fathers to increase their involvement in the care of their children and, not least, on support for parents in talking to their children about sex and relationships. We can be thankful that we have moved on from the experiences of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, with Shelley half a century ago, but there is still a lot to be done.
	The most reverend Primate issued a clarion call to the voluntary sector. Many noble Lords have spoken of the many voluntary organisations involved in the field. I shall add a further one, which is particularly concerned with very early crime and delinquency. My right honourable friend Mr Oliver Letwin has set out a strategy of what he terms early intervention. He has drawn on the research of Dr Stephen Scott of King's College, London, who found, in an initiative conducted in south London, that 15 per cent of children under five showed signs of anti-social behaviour, characterised by being oppositional and defiant, disliked by siblings and with poor relations with parents, who find them difficult or impossible to control.
	One hundred and forty one children aged three to eight were referred with anti-social behaviour. The parents of 90 of them were allocated to parenting groups, with the remainder placed on a waiting list. The parents of the 90 were invited to attend a course of eight to 10 meetings in a pleasant environment for just one evening a week for 10 weeks. Attendance was voluntary, but the vast majority attended. Classes involved a structured sequence of topics introduced with video clips of parents with children. The topics covered included play, praise, incentives, setting limits and discipline. The course emphasised the promotion of sociable, self-reliant child behaviour and calm parenting and related this to the background experience and predicament of the individual parents.
	The effect of the course was subsequently assessed, both by direct observation and interview. The anti-social behaviour of the children showed a marked overall reduction compared to those in the waiting group, which did not change at all. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, reported similar experiences from the Child Protection Unit.
	We on these Benches would like there to be targeted intervention to help parents to handle children at a young age who show signs of disruptive and delinquent behaviour. We should like the programme to be extended to parents of teenage children who are showing similar problems. The programme should be holistic, drawing on the support of health visitors, social services, primary and secondary school teachers and, for children already in trouble, the police. I have described how that can work.
	The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, gave us a telling statistic from the Youth Justice Board, which showed a 50 per cent drop in offending rates by young people whose parents attended parenting programmes. That was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. That is an example of how the voluntary sector and various government-supported agencies can work together in that field.
	The debate has been fascinating and informed and distinguished by speakers with a detailed knowledge of their subject. In thanking the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, again, I look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, what a good topic this has been for debate, and what an excellent example it provides of what this House can offer on an issue of this type. It is a privilege to be present in a debate of this quality, especially as we heard the maiden speech by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and were able to relish a second maiden speech of the outgoing Archbishop.
	I shall set out from the Government's perspective why this subject matters and perhaps open a discussion of the role of government in that respect. I shall touch on what we have done so far and signal some pointers as to the future. In the process, I shall try to answer the 30 or so questions that were raised.
	We have all established clearly why this subject matters. First, children first learn about values, rights and responsibilities in their families and, if they do not learn, there are consequences for them and for society. Secondly, successful parenting helps children to achieve their full potential, which is clearly in the interests of children and society. Thirdly, successful early parenting is crucial for the effective emotional development of the child, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, quoting the important pioneering work of John Bowlby in that respect. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, emphasised the quality of early parenting as being crucial.
	We know what we need to happen and what good parenting looks like; the problem is what happens when it goes wrong. What are the risk factors? Research carried out by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation identified several factors centred on the home that put children at risk of poor outcomes, such as drug abuse, crime, early pregnancy and school failure. They include weak parental supervision and discipline, family conflict, a family history of behavioural problems, parental involvement or attitudes condoning behavioural problems, low income and poor housing. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, and others referred to those problems.
	The research evidence also suggests protective actions to help to reduce the impact of those risk factors. We are beginning to tease out some clarity about the role of government in supporting families to reduce the risk factors and supporting parents in developing skills to be a success for their children and to make their children successful. Clearly, all noble Lords who have spoke see that as highly desirable.
	The noble Lord, Lord Warner, is to be congratulated on the role he played in the Government's Green Paper Supporting Families in 1998, which introduced some reflective action by the Government as to how the state should support families without moving too far. It set out five areas for action: reducing child poverty; making it easier for parents to spend more time with their children; strengthening marriage; tackling the more serious problems of family life; and seeking to ensure that parents have access to advice and support. I shall touch on some of those later. All of that sits in the context of a commitment to try to provide public services of the quality and accessibility that families and children need to ensure they have the opportunity to achieve their potential.
	In government policy and public services generally, however, there is a particular focus on the most disadvantaged. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sheppard, spoke about Sure Start and the Children's Fund Partnership. Many have spoken about Sure Start. The Government, like the House, recognise that Sure Start has delivered better outcomes for all children. The Sure Start approach will be mainstreamed over the next 10 years. We are beginning to pilot how to mainstream it into the rest of society across Britain generally.
	We have put in place a comprehensive strategy to improve the living standards of today's poorest children and to break the cycle of disadvantage. We want to go further in that respect. From April 2003, the new child tax credit will increase financial support to all low and medium-income families. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and others spoke about the importance of work-life balance and ensuring that parents have the time and energy to devote to good parenting. Many of us know how tightly stretched one can sometimes feel when trying to manage two careers and two or more children at the same time, perhaps even with many compensating advantages.
	We are putting in place a number of measures, from April 2003, to go further on that. First, families with children younger than six years old will have a right to expect and demand from their employer, or to negotiate with their employer, flexible working. We believe that they should. Next, there will be improved statutory maternity and paternity pay. Thirdly, there will be an increase in paid and unpaid maternity leave, extending to 12 months the period in which parents can get maternity leave.
	The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, challenged the Government as an employer to exhibit some of those practices. We are seeking to do so in the Home Office by running an innovative parenting course for our staff, both mothers and fathers. The course has been running for two years and has proved very popular. The noble Lord also signalled the importance of fathers—as did the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey—as well as the pain and suffering that can be experienced by children who do not know the identity of one of their parents or feel that they have lost contact with a mother or father. We recognise the important role that fathers play. We are making a start through key initiatives such as Sure Start and the Children's Fund and the family support grant. The Home Office family support grant involves funding for a number of projects that will support fathers.
	The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, spoke about the importance of marriage and of secure relationships, as did the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. The Lord Chancellor's Department funds the voluntary sector to provide marriage and relationship support services. In a number of areas, I think that the support is developing and improving as it needs to.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, spoke about teenage pregnancy. That is clearly, as I signalled, on our agenda. We are seeking to address the root causes of teenage pregnancy and are committed to halve the rate of conception among under 18s by 2010, which we feel is a central thrust and focus for the work.
	We then had, I was delighted to hear, a range of noble Lords speaking about the importance of the voluntary sector in providing parental support and contributing to these issues. I am delighted partly because I think that it is right, but also because I am delighted to be the Minister with the lead responsibility for the voluntary sector. So you are preaching to the converted. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop was not least in addressing those issues, some of which I shall touch on.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, talked about the importance of making parenting support available when it is most needed, when people become parents. I agree. The fifth annual national family support grant, worth £5.8 million annually, will support a wide variety of parenting support programmes. It will continue to fund innovative work, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, signalled. We try to fund a range of programmes in order to find out what works. We then try to support what works by rolling out the programmes when they have proved successful in early initiatives.
	The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury signalled the importance of an overview of the role of the volunteer and the voluntary sector. I strongly agree. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey, challenged me to get the sack by saying that the Government should give a commitment to make more resources available to the voluntary sector. However, I think I can support him without getting the sack by signalling that we seek to challenge both central government departments and local government to think more creatively about how they can harness the potential that is in the voluntary sector to address a range of societal problems, not least how to support families and children. I and my officials have worked on a range of initiatives to open up creative dialogue to determine where we can offer further support. I confidently expect that that will lead to a switch of funding and will result in more funding going into the voluntary sector where we identify—as I believe we shall be able to do—that it can make a bigger impact and consequently deliver more successful outcomes.
	We are already doing a fair amount in that regard. The new Parenting Fund announced in July in the spending review is worth £25 million over three years for new services delivered in partnership with voluntary and community organisations. I am delighted to support the most reverend Primate the Archbishop in paying credit to the work of faith communities in providing support for parents. We already do so through providing funding for Care for the Family and Fathers Direct. No doubt we should be doing more, as I shall be encouraged to reflect upon.
	This is a good opportunity to congratulate Home Start on its thirtieth birthday. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, and, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Wright, signalled its importance and its achievements. The Home Office provides funding of £100,000 a year to it in recognition of the impact it has made.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, made the important point that one should not simply mount a range of initiatives but that one needs also to undertake serious research to evaluate what works, why it works, and to ascertain whether it can be developed further. Recently we commissioned the Policy Research Bureau to provide us with an up-to-date systematic overview of what works in parenting support. That will tell us what works and what is promising. Sometimes what appears possible should be supported just as much as what is certain, as what is certain is often too narrow. One has to have information and evaluation to inform the next stage of policy and service delivery.
	Clearly, giving parents access to information when they need it and when they judge that it is necessary is an important factor. The old model of being able to talk to a grandmother is not always available. Therefore, we are supporting Parentline which is already receiving a quarter of a million telephone calls a year from parents. As noble Lords would expect, we are also supporting other departments in this respect. A website is to be launched in the autumn which will provide a one-stop shop for parents to be able to access advice and information from the Government on parenting issues.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, rightly mentioned anti-social behaviour and asked what happens when things have gone wrong in respect of parenting and discipline resulting in anti-social behaviour. Not all of that is caused by children or even teenagers. The Government's White Paper on anti-social behaviour had families and children at the very heart of its agenda. It seeks to ensure that parents face up to their responsibilities and are supported in doing so. I refer to parenting contracts whereby a parent is asked to sign a contract agreeing to attend parenting courses and achieve improvements in child attendance. We are encouraged that parents who have attended parenting courses, often unwillingly at first, have said afterwards that they valued and welcomed the experience. They have asked why they were not encouraged, pushed or cajoled into attending such courses sooner as they were helpful. In the light of that experience, we are not shy about taking such initiatives further.
	Speakers were concerned about those most at risk. Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and others have drawn that issue to our attention. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, also mentioned the Children at Risk Green Paper which will be published in the coming months. That will consider the recommendations of the children's commissioner raised previously by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, and mentioned by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, although I cannot forecast at this stage exactly what it will say. Clearly, that is part of the jigsaw of action in terms of how we care for those in greatest need.
	I was asked about the quality of nursery education and childcare. The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, raised the subject of expanding childcare. I have twice heard my right honourable friend Patricia Hewitt, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, emphasise the importance of developing better childcare arrangements, including when she spoke to regional development agencies about their programmes and made the point that regional economic development requires effective childcare if we are to harness the contribution of some fathers and mothers into our society. We are well on our way to meet our target of creating new places for 1.6 million children by 2004.
	I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, raised the subject of nurseries. Free nursery education is universal for four year-olds, but it will also be for three year-olds by 2004, which we think an essential part of better support for parenting.
	Not for the first time in the House, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, shocked us with his direct statements of how dreadful matters have been in the past. It would be good to think that all those dreadfulnesses were over, but we would be a complacent government if we believed that that was the case. That cri de coeur—that experience of how individuals feel powerless in the face of the state at times—is a salutary reminder. Even so, we have seen evidence of it when the Government have sometimes tracked the experience of a parent with a disabled child. They have often had to negotiate with many very different parts of the public sector, which has shown no capacity to join up its services in a parent, child and client-centred way. That is one of the biggest challenges to government, and we must try to get better at it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Chan, spoke about the children's centres that will bring together integrated childcare and early-years education, as well as parenting, family support and health services. We believe that to be a very interesting new experiment. The longer-term aim is to have a children's centre for every disadvantaged area, including north-west England, about which he inquired.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked about better use of schools. Extended schools are likely to be open to pupils, families and the wider community throughout the school day, before and after school hours, at weekends and during school holidays. That will come as some comfort to many noble Lords who have probably argued for 30 or 40 years that schools locked up seem a chronic waste of a public resource. We are not there yet, though; we have not got it totally cracked, although we are making progress.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, made a unique speech about the importance of emotional development, a subject that might not have had as much emphasis as one would have expected in the debate. He asked a couple of specific questions. I hope that he will bear with me if I write to him, as they would take too long to answer orally from the Dispatch Box.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, raised the question of Northern Ireland. Proposals for a children's strategy for Northern Ireland are being developed. We already involve a sizeable number of parents in Northern Ireland in discussions from the early stage of the process, to get their view on the measures needed in the strategies to support families. In part, involving the potential recipients of government policy is how that policy should be formed.
	Not for the first time, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, about being impressed by the work of Stephen Scott and others in the area. The recent White Paper, Respect and Responsibility, outlined plans to make parenting support available through parenting orders and parenting contracts, in many ways building on his important work.
	That is a quick tour d'horizon of where we have been. In the two minutes or so left to me, I will speak very briefly about what comes next. Although the House has been generous in commenting that the Government have done quite a lot in the past six years, we do not claim that we have got perfection or solved the problems yet.
	We believe that it is important to continue to ensure that policy across government is coherent and that we have a strategy for the future that appears to be evidence-based and building on what we have learnt so far. Four years after Supporting Families, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Warner, it now appears to be time to take another look at family policy across the board. We must ensure that lessons are being learnt across government, that all the gaps are being plugged and that government agencies and the voluntary sector are being harnessed as effectively as they can be. We therefore intend to carry out such a review to take stock of where we have got to since Supporting Families and to see how government policy in that respect needs to change and develop. I have no doubt that that process of review and reflection will be informed by the quality of this debate. It will be our responsibility to reflect on what has been said.
	I hope that if we carry out that review without too much delay, we could do so by 2004, which is the 10th anniversary of the United Nations International Year of the Family. We therefore hope that the review of family policy will lead us into that with a firm foundation for how we make the next stage of movement to address this crucial problem. That involves trying to support families and children to have the success that they want in society and to find an appropriate role for the state in supporting them in doing so.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, although there are a few minutes left, I will not delay the House at this hour. That was a brilliant debate and I am deeply grateful to everyone who took part. I thank and congratulate all the speakers. Much of the ground was covered with much knowledge and experience and in a lively and interesting way. I also thank my Cross-Bench colleagues for the very strong support that I received from them.
	The most reverend Primate mentioned the difficulty of defining the family. Might I dare to suggest a formula that I recently heard from Sweden? It is that a family is any group that feeds out of the same fridge.
	I am going to try to attract the attention of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh—

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord. I was saying that I have been in Scandinavia in student hostels at which all sorts of people feed out of the same fridge, but we were certainly not family!

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am told that there are 11 departments of state whose decisions affect the fortunes of children and parents. In view of the quality of this debate, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the other 10 of his colleagues in the relevant departments read this debate?

Lord Filkin: Yes, my Lords, I will.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2003

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving these regulations, I shall also speak to the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order, which was laid on 5th February.
	The two instruments represent the final changes needed to implement the increase in national insurance contributions announced in last year's Budget, as well as making the minor changes to rates and thresholds announced in the Pre-Budget Report. The Government's plan to use national insurance to raise money towards the cost of a major programme of improvements to the National Health Service was widely welcomed.
	The Social Security (Contributions) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations make changes to the married women's national insurance contributions reduced rate, and other minor consequential changes to the national insurance contributions regulations. The provisions in the regulations and the re-rating order are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
	Let me set out why the changes to the married women's reduced rate are dealt with in regulations when the changes to the main rates of national insurance were dealt with in the National Insurance Contributions Act 2002. That is because the married women's reduced rate can be varied by regulation under the existing primary legislation and, unlike the main contribution rates, there is no limit to the amount by which it can be changed. That means that primary legislation was not needed to increase it by 1 per cent.
	Apart from some minor consequential changes to allow for the Budget changes to contributions, the main substantive change is in Regulation 6. This will ensure that married women who elected to pay national insurance contributions at the reduced rate before 1997 and are still paying at only 3.85 per cent will also pay the proposed extra 1 per cent national insurance contributions from this April. Approximately 80,000 married women are paying the reduced rate. It is only fair to other contributors that they should also pay towards the cost of an improved National Health Service. This will raise the reduced rate to 4.85 per cent. Married women paying the reduced rate will also pay 1 per cent on their earnings above the upper earnings limit.
	The regulations also make a minor drafting change, arising from the National Insurance Contributions Act 2002, to the mariners regulations. Regulation 4 ensures that the calculation of a mariner's earnings period when on a voyage reflects the introduction of the main primary percentage and the additional primary percentage. We have taken the opportunity in Regulations 10 and 11 to make a drafting correction to Regulation 156 of the contributions regulations to correct an oversight, not picked up at the time, which omitted the married women's reduced rate provisions applying in Northern Ireland.
	The re-rating order makes two changes announced in last year's Pre-Budget Report. First, the annual small earnings exception below which a self-employed person may claim exemption from payment of class 2 contributions will rise broadly in line with prices from £4,025 to £4,095 per year. Given that the rate of class 2 contributions for 2003–04 will remain at £2 a week—a reduction in real terms—it may be that many low-earning self-employed people will choose to pay the contributions in order to protect their benefit entitlement.
	Secondly, the draft order deals with the weekly rate of voluntary class 3 contributions, which allow those with insufficient contribution records in any given tax year to make up a "qualifying year" for benefit purposes. The rate of class 3 will rise this April by 10 pence to £6.95 a week—a standard re-rating in line with prices.
	The review of contribution rates is accompanied by a report from the Government Actuary detailing the effects of the draft order and the draft order up-rating benefits laid by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the National Insurance Fund. There is no expectation that the fund will need a Treasury grant. Nevertheless, we are making a prudent minimal provision of 2 per cent of all benefit expenditure. That is set out at paragraph 4 of the order.
	As happened in the past two years, there is a single draft order for both Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland has a separate national insurance scheme from Great Britain, but the two schemes are closely co-ordinated and maintain parity of contribution rates. Following the transfer of national insurance to the Inland Revenue in 1999, Northern Ireland's social security legislation was amended to enable the draft re-rating order to include corresponding measures for the Province. I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 24th February be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining in detail what is before us. As he said, the regulations bring about changes to married women's reduced rate contributions to national insurance. Married women who have elected to pay a reduced rate of national insurance will also be subject to the 1 per cent increase that the Government propose.
	As discussed in the First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the plan is that money raised from national insurance is put towards a major programme of improvements in the National Health Service. Sadly, however, we on these Benches believe that that policy is flawed and will not result in the consequences that Her Majesty's Government envisage. Surely a system in which there are more administrators than beds is indicative of a structural problem which will not be solved by throwing money at it. Now married women too are having to pay the price of the Government's mismanagement of our public services.
	The draft order deals with various national insurance contribution rates and thresholds. The regulations and the order are necessary steps for the Government to implement the increase in national insurance contributions announced in last year's Budget. It is not difficult to work out how we find ourselves in this situation when the Labour Party has pledged not to increase income taxes but, as a consequence of underestimating the slow down of the British economy, the Government are short of money. Tax revenues are not sufficient to bring about much needed improvement in public services.
	The Government can see no way out of the dilemma apart from doing what they do best: taxing more and spending more. As income tax cannot be touched, the only alternative is national insurance contributions—a tax on jobs. Make no mistake: our people will suffer and business will suffer. It has been reported that the national insurance surcharge for employers would cost the health service and local government an estimated £600 million. In the long run, that is one more step down a road where Great Britain becomes less competitive as labour costs mount.
	Both order and regulations must be accepted for the Government to implement their policy. While we may be unhappy with the way in which the Government are tackling the problem of public services, I recognise that the Government must get their business done, and we shall not oppose the order or the regulations.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, at this late hour and on this narrow subject I wish that I were in a position to speak on behalf of mariners everywhere and keep the Minister on his toes, but I am not. As he may have guessed, I shall speak briefly on the married women's stamp. We on these Benches support the 1 per cent increase in national insurance to pay for the health service. We believe that that is a much needed and wise investment. However, as my honourable friend in another place, Steve Webb, has argued, the imposition of an extra 1 per cent on those women who pay the married women's stamp compounds a long-standing injustice.
	Those women who pay the married women's stamp currently pay 3.85 per cent compared to the full rate of l0 per cent, but in return they do not receive 40 per cent of the basic state pension. In many cases they receive just a few pence, and one woman who contacted my honourable friend receives just 1p. a week. They also lose entitlement to all contributory benefits. Many of the women are currently paying 3.85 per cent, and in return receive nothing.
	This debate takes place in the context of the pensions Green Paper discussions that are taking place. Therefore, from previous discussions in the House I understand that the Minister will argue that women made an informed choice in this matter. Our contention is that some women made an informed choice but many others did not. In May 2000 the then Minister in another place, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, admitted that the information given to women would not pass the plain English test. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, in October 2002 said:
	"Women first entering the labour market in the 1960s and 1970s had to sign to elect to receive the reduced stamp; secondly, in 1977–78, they had all the information"—
	through leaflets, newspapers, radio and so on—
	"thirdly, they received further information in 1989; and, fourthly, they were given further information in 2000 associated with the changes in the lower earnings limit. So, on four occasions, married women paying the reduced stamp received fairly straightforward—I do not say that it was brilliant—accessible information on which to make an informed choice".—[Official Report, 15/10/02; col. 693.]
	An example of that accessible information is the national insurance 1 leaflet of 1976 which stated:
	"If you satisfy the first condition and (where it applies) the second condition, but you do not satisfy the third condition because the number of your qualifying years is less than required, you will not get a standard rate pension. However, you will get a basic state pension at a reduced rate provided that the number of qualifying years is at least a quarter of the number required for a standard rate pension. If the number of your qualifying years is less than a quarter of the number required, no pension at all can be paid on your own contributions".
	The Minister was right. It is not brilliant.
	A user said:
	"I can remember having a letter many years ago . . . but it was written in the usual official jargon, which few understand, and it was certainly not drawn to one's attention as being of major importance".
	She then made the key point:
	"The DHSS must have realised from the lack of response that thousands like me had not understood the full implications and should have issued something about it in normal English, which spelt it out better".
	This 1 per cent rise is about paying for the NHS. In that context we could consider this example, which was sent in by a man. He said:
	"My wife has worked for the NHS as a registered nurse for more than 30 years, working normally four hours each week less than full-time . . . Earlier this year she was diagnosed with cancer ... She received part of her salary and SSP for six months, and at the end of this period she applied for Incapacity Benefit. She has been refused this on the grounds that she has paid the married woman's stamp . . . She is very upset".
	We believe that not only was the information unclear, but there was a culture among some employers automatically to make the election for women, and in some cases they did not even tell them. On top of that the advice from the DSS in some cases was that women would be better off to pay the married women's stamp. As the Minister said, 80,000 women still pay the married women's stamp. We contend that those women should be contacted and have their situation explained clearly while they still have time to make up contributions, which others do not.
	As this discussion is in the context of the Green Paper, I want to take the opportunity to mention one other group of women. They do not make any contribution. They are women prisoners. That issue has been raised in the media recently. They are not allowed to make NICs, so when they do come out, they inevitably have a broken contribution record and will have a lower pension. The Fawcett Society is currently embarking on research into women and the criminal justice system. While the whole issue of women and pensions is live, perhaps the Department for Work and Pensions might contribute to that research because when talking of women and pensioner poverty, surely those women are at the bottom.
	At the moment there is a widespread debate about pension settlements. It is agreed that there is a need for clarity and responsibility on all sides in order to rebuild trust in pensions. We believe that enabling women to make contributions to restore their broken earnings record would begin to restore that trust for some women.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not sure that I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox and Lady Barker, for their reception of the regulations and the order. Clearly, both noble Baronesses are concerned with much wider issues than those which are involved in these limited statutory instruments. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, did not quite say that she does not believe that the money would go into the health service, but she said that the money that went into it would be wasted on more managers, that it would not result in good value for money, and that what we are proposing here is a return to a tax and spend culture.
	It is sufficiently clear from what has happened to the health service that the improvements are being made at the front line. Since 1997 we have gained 15,000 more doctors and consultants, 30,000 more therapists and scientists, and 35,000 more nurses, midwives and health visitors. If there is any question as to how the money has been spent, we have introduced independent audit procedures and scrutiny procedures, including scrutiny of patient complaints.
	These national insurance contributions will help to fund the 7.4 per cent annual real growth in spending for the National Health Service, which amounts to £8.6 billion in the year 2003–04.
	I am also confident that the way in which it is being raised is fair. It is right that the contributions should be from all employees—that is the Beveridge principle that people in work pay for benefits and health services that they will need when they are no longer in work. That has been the principle since the 1940s. It is also right that employers should contribute, since the Confederation of British Industry itself estimated that in 2001, workplace absence for health reasons cost employers £11.8 billion. This is good value for money for both employers and employees and I have no apology whatsoever for the policy behind it.
	As for the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I have of course read them all before: I read Steve Webb's speech and Dawn Primarolo's reply. I must tell the noble Baroness that this is not a debate about the Green Paper or about the principle of the reduced rate; it is a debate about who should make contributions to the National Health Service. I noticed that she did not for a moment say that married women should not make their fair contribution to the National Health Service. My noble friend Lady Hollis and I should be happy to debate with the noble Baroness on any proper occasion the whole issue of married women and reduced-rate contributions, but that issue is not before us. The issue is who should contribute to increased funding for the National Health Service. On that, I am glad that we are in agreement. I commend the regulations to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2003

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 5th February be approved [11th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowance (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003 be approved.
	I should have loved to extend the previous debate and suggested that, with hindsight, we all have 20:20 vision. I know from my experience of women who were required to contribute to pension schemes and may have objected at the time but were retrospectively jolly glad; but the reverse can be true. But I shall stick to my own regulations tonight, not trespass on my noble friend's territory, and ask your Lordships to approve the regulations.
	The regulations transfer responsibility for decision making in child benefit and guardian's allowances to the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue, as provided for under Section 50 of the Tax Credit Act 2002. That Act transferred responsibility for the administration of both child benefit and guardian's allowance to the board—that is, the Commissioners of the Inland Revenue.
	In June 2001, the Prime Minister announced the transfer of responsibility for child benefit and guardian's allowance in Great Britain. That was followed a couple of months later by confirmation from the Northern Ireland Assembly. The transfer there will occur on 1st April. So the policy intent of the regulations has already been well discussed and aired in your Lordships' House.
	Child benefit and guardian's allowance will remain social security benefits and the rules that govern entitlement to them and how they should be administered will remain those set out in existing social security Acts. The four sets of regulations on child benefit and guardian's allowance laid on 3rd March, of which this set forms part, bring together in a consolidated set of regulations all the provisions in secondary legislation that govern those two benefits across the UK as a whole. That is the reason for their length. The new regulations are necessary as a result of the transfer of responsibility to the Inland Revenue.
	In other words, there is no policy change; the regulations consolidate a whole set of regulations scattered across a whole set of social security legislation, further complicated by the fact that the current legislation applies both to Great Britain and to Northern Ireland, and we are bringing them together into one.
	The new sets of regulations ensure that those claiming, or advising claimants on these benefits, as well as the Revenue itself, will need only to refer to a single set of up to date provisions that clearly set out the extent of the Revenue's powers in relation to those benefits.
	The particular set of regulations before your Lordships today replace those provisions in the current Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations, and the Northern Ireland equivalent, relating to child benefit and guardian's allowance. They create a consolidated set of regulations governing all decisions made by the board in relation to child benefit and guardian's allowance in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, including when decisions can be changed, information can be requested, payment can be suspended or entitlement terminated and finally when and how claimants can appeal those decisions. I repeat that there is no policy change. It is consolidation—something that usually your Lordships anxiously ask us to pursue.
	I am sure that your Lordships would like me to make it clear that appeals against decisions on these benefits will continue to be heard by the same appeals tribunals as now. They will be governed by the Social Security Act 1998, as now, and there is no intention of changing that.
	These regulations merely replace the existing regulations in Great Britain and Northern Ireland—a consequence of the transfer of responsibility. They do not change the nature of any of the rights, nor the responsibilities or powers provided for in the existing regulations. That was not the intention of the transfer.
	In practice, therefore, claimants will see no difference as a result of the new regulations. They will have the same rights and responsibilities under these new regulations as they do now. They will be able to appeal against decisions in the same way and to the same appeal bodies as now. In Great Britain, that means an appeal tribunal or the Appeals Service and in Northern Ireland its equivalent. But those who rely on understanding the precise powers that apply to decisions of the Inland Revenue in such cases, such as local advice groups, legal advisers and the Revenue's own decision-makers, will be able to rely on a single, clear set of provisions, because we are consolidating them.
	In line with the principles of the Tax Law Rewrite, we have tried to ensure that these new regulations are written in simple, plain English to make them as easy as possible to follow, given the complex situations that they need to cover. We also felt that taking the opportunity to consolidate the regulations was preferable to relying on ad hoc amendments to the existing regulations to ensure maximum clarity and accessibility.
	As I have said, these regulations make no substantive changes to claimants' rights and responsibilities. But I hope that your Lordships will agree that that is a useful clarification. They are necessary because of the development of new tax credits and the implications for children.
	In conclusion, I am satisfied that these regulations are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. I commend the regulations to your Lordships, noting that they are essentially a bundle of technical changes transferring policy responsibility from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Board of Inland Revenue. The appeals and decision-making process remains unaltered, policy remains unaltered, and consolidation should increase clarity. With that, I hope that these regulations will be warmly welcomed.
	Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 5th March be approved [13th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)

Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her canter through the draft Child Benefit and Guardian's Allowances (Decisions and Appeals) Regulations 2003. I am happy to accept these regulations which transfer the administration of the payment of child benefit and the guardian's allowance from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Inland Revenue. For benefits to reach those who need them most, it is essential that the system is as simple and as user-friendly as she described. I understand from the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation that these regulations go quite a way to achieving that.
	I note that those individuals who are currently responsible for the administration of child benefit and guardian's allowance will still be responsible after the transfer, in the same location and in the same job. The only change is that they will be part of the Inland Revenue. There should therefore be no additional training costs or significant costs resulting from the transfer of responsibilities, but I should like to seek reassurance from the Minister on that. That apart, I am pleased to support these draft regulations.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I, too, support the regulations. I agree that they are a model of clarity. Clearly if it is the same person writing these regulations as in 1977, she is now a pensioner and not a married woman. I welcome the simplification of the administration. We hope that it will set a precedent that the Government may wish to follow by transferring many more of the Child Support Agency processes to the Inland Revenue, something we have advocated for a long time.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful for the rapid welcome that has been given to the regulations. I understand why the responses were both welcoming and rapid.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, asked me about training costs. My understanding is that they will continue as now. We are merely consolidating, given the Inland Revenue's responsibility for child tax credits and the way in which child benefit lies as a building block alongside that. It makes sense for the customer to have one body handling these functions.
	I welcome what the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said about clarity. As to her point about the Child Support Agency, at this stage I shall merely say that she is misguided. No doubt we shall enjoy debating the issue on a future occasion—and I emphasise the word "enjoy".

On Question, Motion agreed to.
	House adjourned at nineteen minutes before ten o'clock.